The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 34.3. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is 63.5x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 34.3, ranking #2 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is roughly 63.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Fable 5.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Fable 5.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 56.8 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

  • cost matters — it's about 63.5x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
DeepSeek
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
56.8
#2
34.3
#87
Reasoning
53.9
#5
32.9
#95
Coding
36.0
#23
18.4
#105
Agents
41.9
#2
10.4
#105
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.28 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.42 / M
Context window
1,000,000
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
Tool use
30.7#12
9.8#124
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 8 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

1 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Sep 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 35.7x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale ($0.28/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 119.0x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale ($0.42/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Sep 07 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
Input tokens$0.28
Output tokens$0.42
Best providerDeepSeek
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale's 131,072 tokens. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.1 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Mon Sep 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale does not.

Claude Fable 5.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Fable 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale was released on 2025-12-01.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 9 months newer than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

5 days ago

9mo newer
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

Dec 1, 2025

9 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is available from DeepSeek.

Claude Fable 5.1

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.28/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.42/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 34.3. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is made by DeepSeek. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.1 compare to DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores OSWorld 2.0: 77.9%, CursorBench v3.2: 73.4%, Humanity's Last Exam: 65.0%, GDPval-AA: 61.8%, Terminal-Bench 4.0: 55.8%. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale scores HMMT 2025: 99.2%, AIME 2025: 96.0%, CodeForces: 90.0%, t2-bench: 80.3%, SWE-Bench Verified: 73.1%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is 35.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale costs $0.28/M input and $0.42/M output via deepseek.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.8 vs 34.3), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.28/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is developed by DeepSeek.

Related comparisons