Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 34.6. GLM-4.7 is 20.0x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Zhipu AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 34.6, 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, GLM-4.7 is roughly 20.0x 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 GLM-4.7

cost matters — it's about 20.0x cheaper per token
you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Better token value: GLM-4.7

Core performance indexes

LLM Stats Score

56.8

#2 · 5 evals

Best

34.6

#85 · 13 evals

Reasoning

53.9

#5 · 4 evals

Best

34.5

#83 · 13 evals

Coding

36.0

#23 · 1 evals

Best

17.8

#109 · 4 evals

Agents

41.9

#2 · 4 evals

Best

9.7

#116 · 4 evals

Cost, coverage & limits

Benchmark wins

1 of 1

Best

0 of 1

Input price

$10.00 / M

$0.60 / M

Best

Output price

$50.00 / M

$2.20 / M

Best

Context window

1,000,000

Best

202,800

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared

Index

Claude Fable 5.1

GLM-4.7

Tool use

30.7#12 · 2 evals

8.2#133 · 2 evals

Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 13 for GLM-4.7

1 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while GLM-4.7 is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Sep 04 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

GLM-4.7 costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 16.7x more expensive than GLM-4.7 ($0.60/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 22.7x more expensive than GLM-4.7 ($2.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than GLM-4.7.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers

Fri Sep 04 2026 • llm-stats.com

Claude Fable 5.1

Input tokens$10.00

Output tokens$50.00

Best providerAnthropic

GLM-4.7

Input tokens$0.60

Output tokens$2.20

Best providerFireworks

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 GLM-4.7's 202,800 tokens. GLM-4.7 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.1 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Claude Fable 5.1

Input1,000,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

GLM-4.7

Input202,800 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Fri Sep 04 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-4.7 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

GLM-4.7

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while GLM-4.7 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

GLM-4.7

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while GLM-4.7 was released on 2025-12-22.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 8 months newer than GLM-4.7.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

3 days ago

8mo newer

GLM-4.7

Dec 22, 2025

8 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. GLM-4.7 is available from Fireworks, Novita.

Claude Fable 5.1

Anthropic

Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

GLM-4.7

Fireworks

Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.20/1M

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.20/1M

* 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 GLM-4.7 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1

✓ Preferred

GLM-4.7

Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM-4.7?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 34.6. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and GLM-4.7 is made by Zhipu AI. 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 GLM-4.7 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%. GLM-4.7 scores AIME 2025: 95.7%, Tau-bench: 87.4%, GPQA: 85.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 84.9%, MMLU-Pro: 84.3%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is 16.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. GLM-4.7 costs $0.60/M input and $2.20/M output via fireworks.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-4.7?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and GLM-4.7 supports 203K 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 GLM-4.7?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.8 vs 34.6), context window (1.0M vs 203K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.60/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM-4.7?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and GLM-4.7 is developed by Zhipu AI.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM-4.7