The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs MAI-Thinking-1

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 32.9.

Anthropic · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 32.9, ranking #2 overall.

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 want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose MAI-Thinking-1

  • you are already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
MAI-Thinking-1
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
56.8
#2
32.9
#96
Reasoning
53.9
#5
33.7
#87
Coding
36.0
#23
19.3
#100
Agents
41.9
#2
12.4
#94
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
MAI-Thinking-1
Tool use
30.7#12
10.2#121
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 23 for MAI-Thinking-1

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.1 and MAI-Thinking-1don'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

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Fable 5.1 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5.1 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Microsoft
MAI-Thinking-1
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Sat Sep 05 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MAI-Thinking-1 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

MAI-Thinking-1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

MAI-Thinking-1

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while MAI-Thinking-1 was released on 2026-06-02.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 3 months newer than MAI-Thinking-1.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

4 days ago

3mo newer
MAI-Thinking-1

Jun 2, 2026

3 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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and MAI-Thinking-1 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
MAI-Thinking-1
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs MAI-Thinking-1.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 56.8 to 32.9. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and MAI-Thinking-1 is made by Microsoft. 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 MAI-Thinking-1 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%. MAI-Thinking-1 scores LongFact: 98.0%, AIME 2025: 97.0%, AIME 2026: 94.5%, GraphWalks: 90.0%, AIR-Bench: 88.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and MAI-Thinking-1 supports an unknown number of 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 MAI-Thinking-1?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (56.8 vs 32.9), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and MAI-Thinking-1 is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons