The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.9 to 51.8. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is 60.6x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 55.9 to 51.8, ranking #2 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is roughly 60.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,040,000 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 55.9 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 60.6x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,040,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
  • 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-V4.1-Flash
DeepSeek
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
55.9
#2
51.8
#12
Reasoning
53.0
#5
48.9
#17
Coding
35.5
#25
44.4
#5
Agents
41.8
#2
41.3
#4
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 3
1 of 3
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.22 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.66 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,040,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Vision
41.8#1
29.5#31
Tool use
30.6#15
35.1#2
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 20 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

3 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is better at 1 benchmark (AutomationBench).

Claude Fable 5.1 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 45.5x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ($0.22/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 75.8x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ($0.66/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Input tokens$0.22
Output tokens$0.66
Best providerFireworks
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash accepts 1,040,000 input tokens compared to Claude Fable 5.1's 1,000,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash can generate longer responses up to 393,216 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-V4.1-Flash
Input1,040,000 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 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-V4.1-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash was released on 2026-09-10.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is 0 month newer than Claude Fable 5.1.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 weeks ago

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Sep 10, 2026

0 days ago

1w newer

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-V4.1-Flash is available from Fireworks, DeepInfra, DeepSeek, Novita.

Claude Fable 5.1

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.22/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.66/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* 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-V4.1-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.9 to 51.8. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 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-V4.1-Flash 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-V4.1-Flash scores CodeForces: 100.0%, GPQA: 90.9%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 90.6%, BabyVision: 89.6%, CyberGym: 88.1%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is 45.5x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs $0.22/M input and $0.66/M output via fireworks.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash supports 1.0M 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-V4.1-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (55.9 vs 51.8), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.22/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is developed by DeepSeek.

Related comparisons