Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
BenchLM

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.7

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.

4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Fable 5.1

Anthropic

84.63/100

Supported · Public rank #1

90% interval 78.8–90.5

xAI logo
Model B
Grok 4.7

xAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Updated September 21, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Fable 5.1

    Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok 4.7

    Grok 4.7 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

    Grok 4.7

    Grok 4.7 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

    Grok 4.7

    Grok 4.7 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

    Grok 4.7 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

    Grok 4.7 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

84.5Claude Fable 5.1—Grok 4.7

Not comparable · BenchAlign

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
4
Claude Fable 5.1 only
22
Grok 4.7 only
2
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.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
80.3
Supported · #1/154
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
84.5
Supported · #1/156
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
79.4
#2/19
Grok 4.7
73.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
87.0
Supported · #1/186
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not ranked
Grok 4.7
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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
Grok 4.7
$0.005
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 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
Grok 4.7
$0.118
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 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
Grok 4.7
$0.2
Fits in one request

Grok 4.7 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.

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5.1

Reasoning

Grok 4.7

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

License

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Grok 4.7

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Fable 5.1

2026-09-01

Grok 4.7

2026-09-21

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 $0.118. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.75 vs $0.2.
Context tradeoff
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented window (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 evidence28 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Fable 5.155.80%
    Source
    Grok 4.738.00%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Fable 5.152.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.141.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Fable 5.131.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Fable 5.177.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Fable 5.181.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Fable 5.173.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Fable 5.123.7 turns
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Fable 5.185.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.776.0%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • ApprenticeBench

    Claude Fable 5.172%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    Claude Fable 5.143 fixes
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 5.181.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Fable 5.189.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Fable 5.154.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Fable 5.167.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.771.0%
    Source

    Grok 4.7 leads this result

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Fable 5.156.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Fable 5.187.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 5.173.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Fable 5.190.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench40

    Shared source
    Claude Fable 5.151.8%
    Grok 4.746.3%

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • EEBench

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Grok 4.764.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Fable 5.197.50%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Fable 5.190%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5.165%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Fable 5.160.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Fable 5.193.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Fable 5.192.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.7—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Grok 4.756.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Grok 4.7?

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 Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 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 Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 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 Grok 4.7?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.005 on Grok 4.7; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.118; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Grok 4.7?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 500K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 21, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.7

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.