The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 5.4. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 55.2x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 5.4, ranking #1 overall.

On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 55.2x 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 57.0 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • 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 Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 55.2x 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
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
57.0
#1
5.4
#287
Reasoning
54.5
#4
6.8
#273
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.35 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
1,000,000
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Vision
40.8#1
3.3#160
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B Instructdon'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

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 28.6x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 125.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
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 Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct 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

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.

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

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 24 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 days ago

1.9yr newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.9 years 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. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.

Claude Fable 5.1

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

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* 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 Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 5.4. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta. 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 Llama 3.2 90B Instruct 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%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 28.6x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K 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 Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (57.0 vs 5.4), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.35/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons