The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs QwQ-32B

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 15.0.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 15.0, ranking #1 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 57.0 and ranks #1 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 QwQ-32B

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
QwQ-32B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
57.0
#1
15.0
#219
Reasoning
54.5
#4
15.8
#210
Coding
37.0
#17
10.4
#155
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 · 7 for QwQ-32B

No common benchmarks found

Claude Fable 5.1 and QwQ-32Bdon'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
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas QwQ-32B 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

QwQ-32B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while QwQ-32B uses Apache 2.0.

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

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 18 months newer than QwQ-32B.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 days ago

1.5yr newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

QwQ-32B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-11-28, while Claude Fable 5.1's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm QwQ-32B's training data extends to 2024-11-28, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude Fable 5.1's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.1

—

QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and QwQ-32B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
QwQ-32B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs QwQ-32B.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or QwQ-32B?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 57.0 to 15.0. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and QwQ-32B 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 QwQ-32B 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%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and QwQ-32B?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and QwQ-32B 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 QwQ-32B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (57.0 vs 15.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and QwQ-32B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and QwQ-32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons