The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.8 to 49.6.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 54.8 to 49.6, ranking #5 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
54.8
#5
49.6
#16
Reasoning
52.1
#7
49.2
#16
Agents
39.3
#6
35.5
#14
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 2
0 of 2
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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Vision
40.5#1
34.1#13
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 22 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

2 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, OSWorld 2.0), while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

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
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next uses Qwen Community License 1.0.

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

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen Community License 1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released on 2026-08-26.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 0 month newer than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

0 days ago

6d newer
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Aug 26, 2026

6 days 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.8 to 49.6. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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%. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (54.8 vs 49.6), licensing (Proprietary vs Qwen Community License 1.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons