The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 43.3. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 222.2x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 43.3, ranking #2 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 222.2x 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 56.3 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • cost matters — it's about 222.2x cheaper per token
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
56.3
#2
43.3
#39
Reasoning
53.3
#5
44.7
#32
Agents
41.9
#2
29.5
#35
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
1,000,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Tool use
30.5#15
20.5#56
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash Findon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 166.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 277.8x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's 262,144 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Claude Fable 5.1 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 0 month newer than Claude Fable 5.1.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 weeks ago

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

5 days ago

2d 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. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Fable 5.1

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

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.06/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
* 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.3 to 43.3. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI. 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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%. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin scores SpreadSheetBench-v1: 86.5%, Finance Agent v1.1: 69.2%, Finance Agent v2: 59.8%, Tau3 Banking: 41.0%, APEX-Agents: 29.2%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 166.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.3 vs 43.3), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.06/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons