Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi 4
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 5.7. Phi 4 is 228.6x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Microsoft · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 5.7, ranking #1 overall.
On price, Phi 4 is roughly 228.6x 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 and coding — 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 Phi 4
- cost matters — it's about 228.6x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 13 for Phi 4
Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi 4don'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
For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 142.9x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.07/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 357.1x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.14/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than Phi 4.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,000 tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Phi 4 is limited to 16,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 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
Phi 4
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi 4 uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Phi 4 was released on 2024-12-12.
Claude Fable 5.1 is 21 months newer than Phi 4.
Sep 1, 2026
1 days ago
1.7yr newerDec 12, 2024
1.7 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Phi 4 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Claude Fable 5.1's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Phi 4's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude Fable 5.1's cutoff date.
—
Jun 2024
Provider Availability
Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. Phi 4 is available from DeepInfra.
Claude Fable 5.1
Phi 4
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi 4 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi 4.