Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 80.1
- Supported · #1/152
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
19 Claude Fable 5.1 only
5 Shared
16 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 only
- 19
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash only
- 16
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 84.2
- Supported · #1/151
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 79.4
- #2/18
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 86.8
- Supported · #1/182
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 80.1Supported · #1/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 8 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 84.2Supported · #1/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 79.4#2/18 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 86.8Supported · #1/182 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE
Knowledge
Claude Fable 5.1: 65%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 36.8%Normalized gap 28.2Claude Fable 5.1 source DeepSeek V4.1 Flash sourceAutomationBench
Agentic
Claude Fable 5.1: 31.4%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 54.8%Normalized gap 23.4Claude Fable 5.1 source DeepSeek V4.1 Flash source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.75
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- $0.0192
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5.1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
API model ID
Claude Fable 5.1
claude-fable-5-1
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
deepseek-flash
DeepSeek models and pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Fable 5.1
$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens
Anthropic Fable 5.1 launchDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
$0.006 per 1M cached input tokens
DeepSeek: Models & PricingDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
text, image
DeepSeek vision guideDocumented outputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5.1
Generally Available · Claude API, Claude products, AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Generally Available · DeepSeek API, open weights
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash releaseReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5.1
Reasoning
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Open Weight
License
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Fable 5.1
2026-09-01
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
2026-09-10
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.75 vs $0.0192.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence40 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.155.80%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.20%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Fable 5.152.6%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.141.7%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5.131.4%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash54.8%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5.177.8%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5.181.5%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5.173.1%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5.123.7 turnsSourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.185.0%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.6%SourceNot directly comparable
terminalBench3
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash30%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash88.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash15.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash63.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Fable 5.143 fixesSourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.181.2%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.189.1%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5.154.7%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Fable 5.167.4%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.2%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 5.156.3%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5.187.6%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash20.3%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 5.173.4%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.190.5%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Codeforces
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash3471.0SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.6%SourceNot directly comparable
terminalBench3
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash30%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash65.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Fable 5.165%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash36.8%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.160.9%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.193.4%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.192.4%SourceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.9%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Apex
Claude Fable 5.1—DeepSeek V4.1 Flash65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.0009 on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.0192. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.