VerdictPal · editorial desk · updated 16 Oct 2026VerdictPal
Compare · Two models, head-to-head
Pick two models. See the diff.
Composite scores, benchmark ranks, capability grids, and pricing per million tokens. All sourced from the same data that powers the model atlas.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
Claude Fable 5.14stats won
Tied1stats
Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)1stats won
Spec showdown
Capacity, price, freshness.
Claude Fable 5.1vsClaude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
Claude Fable 5.1 dominates on composite score (77 vs 64), driven by broader benchmark coverage and stronger per-family performance. Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher benchmark mix (77 vs 64). Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) is more affordable at $5.0/1M input — about 2× cheaper than $10/1M.
- Composite scoreClaude Fable 5.177Winner on this rowClaude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)64
- Benchmark mixClaude Fable 5.177Winner on this rowClaude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)64
- Context windowClaude Fable 5.11MClaude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)1M
- Max outputClaude Fable 5.1128KWinner on this rowClaude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)—
- Input price / 1M (lower wins)Claude Fable 5.1$10Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)$5.0Winner on this row
- Output speed (AA default API)Claude Fable 5.167 t/sWinner on this rowClaude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)54 t/s
Composite score
vs
Benchmark mix
vs
Context window
vs
Max output
vs
Input price / 1M (lower wins)
vs
Output speed (AA default API)
vs
Capability grid
What each model can do.
Modalities
Access
Family profile
Top score per benchmark family.
Knowledge
vs
Reasoning
vs
Coding
vs
Agentic
vs
Long context
vs
Benchmark ranks
Every shared benchmark, side by side.
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond#8/184 · #14/184
vs
Humanity's Last Exam#2/186 · #4/186
vs
Coding
SciCode#2/97 · #18/97
vs
Agentic
Terminal-Bench#1/167 · #2/167
vs
Long context
AA-LCR#3/184 · #49/184
vs
Performance
AA output speed#91/195 · #114/195
vs
Dossier facts
Dates, sources, fineprint.
Ecosystem
Which tools wrap each model.
Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
Not listed in any tool yet.
Verdict
Which model to actually pick.
Claude Fable 5.1 dominates on composite score (77 vs 64), driven by broader benchmark coverage and stronger per-family performance. Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher benchmark mix (77 vs 64). Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) is more affordable at $5.0/1M input — about 2× cheaper than $10/1M.
Questions this comparison answers
Every answer below is assembled from the dated fields on this page. Nothing is written separately for search.
Should you use Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)?
Claude Fable 5.1 dominates on composite score (77 vs 64), driven by broader benchmark coverage and stronger per-family performance. Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher benchmark mix (77 vs 64). Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) is more affordable at $5.0/1M input — about 2× cheaper than $10/1M.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) cheaper?
Claude Fable 5.1: $10 / $50. Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort): $5.0 / $25.
How do the Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) context windows compare?
Claude Fable 5.1: 1M. Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort): 1M.