The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are closely matched at 53.1 and 51.0 on the LLM Stats Score. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 38.1x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 53.1 and 51.0.

The models split the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models evenly.

On price, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is roughly 38.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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

  • you want predictable pricing at $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • cost matters — it's about 38.1x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
53.1
#10
51.0
#15
Reasoning
51.1
#10
48.6
#18
Coding
42.7
#5
39.1
#15
Agents
38.7
#8
38.6
#9
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 4
2 of 4
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Math
41.7#7
31.8#67
Vision
35.7#12
32.2#26
Tool use
23.9#42
30.9#7
Multimodal
30.5#36
35.0#14
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for Claude Fable 5 · 11 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

4 shared

Claude Fable 5 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is better at 2 benchmarks (AutomationBench, DeepSWE 1.1).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 33.3x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 41.7x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Fable 5's 1,000,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while Claude Fable 5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 uses MIT.

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

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

Closed source

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5 was released on 2026-06-09, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 4 months newer than Claude Fable 5.

Claude Fable 5

Jun 9, 2026

4 months ago

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

2 days ago

4mo newer

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

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5 is available from Anthropic, DeepInfra. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek.

Claude Fable 5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5
✓ Preferred
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 53.1 and 51.0. Claude Fable 5 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5 compare to DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5 scores SWE-Bench Verified: 95.0%, FrontierSWE: 90.0%, OSWorld-Verified: 85.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, SWE-Bench Pro: 80.0%. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%.

Is Claude Fable 5 cheaper than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 33.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Fable 5 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M 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 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (53.1 vs 51.0), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.30/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek.

Related comparisons