The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.8 to 2.0.

Anthropic · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 54.8 to 2.0, ranking #5 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 54.8 and ranks #5 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
54.8
#5
2.0
#302
Reasoning
52.1
#7
1.5
#296
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 31 for Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-MoE-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

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
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Wed Sep 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct 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

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct 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

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 25 months newer than Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

0 days ago

2.0yr newer
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

2.0 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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.8 to 2.0. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct 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 Phi-3.5-MoE-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%. Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct scores ARC-C: 91.0%, OpenBookQA: 89.6%, GSM8k: 88.7%, PIQA: 88.6%, RULER: 87.1%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct 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 Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (54.8 vs 2.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons