The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Claude Fable 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash are closely matched at 53.4 and 51.0 on the LLM Stats Score.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 53.4 and 51.0.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5 wins 3; 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

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 5 exact shared results

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
53.4
#10
51.0
#15
Reasoning
51.1
#9
47.5
#26
Coding
43.9
#6
38.8
#18
Agents
38.9
#7
38.0
#12
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 5
2 of 5
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
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
23.4#41
29.0#16
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for Claude Fable 5 · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

5 shared

Claude Fable 5 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (FrontierSWE, HealthBench Professional, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while Ling 3.1 Flash is better at 2 benchmarks (AutomationBench, Finance Agent v2).

Claude Fable 5 has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Sat Oct 10 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 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Sat Oct 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Claude Fable 5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Fable 5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5 was released on 2026-06-09, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 4 months newer than Claude Fable 5.

Claude Fable 5

Jun 9, 2026

4 months ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

3mo 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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Fable 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 53.4 and 51.0. Claude Fable 5 is made by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI. 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 Ling 3.1 Flash 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%. Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Fable 5 supports 1.0M tokens and Ling 3.1 Flash 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 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (53.4 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons