Reasoning
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5.1
- 90.0
- Inkling-Small
- 40.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Inkling-Small
Updated September 1, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.74 versus 63.52, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small 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
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small 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
Inkling-Small
Inkling-Small 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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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.
13 Claude Fable 5.1 only
5 Shared
15 Inkling-Small only
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Fable 5.1 only
- 13
- Inkling-Small only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Fable 5.1
- 81.2
- Inkling-Small
- 62.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Fable 5.1
- 65.0
- Inkling-Small
- 53.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 70.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 76.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not measured
- Inkling-Small
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | Inkling-Small | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 90.0 | 40.1 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Claude Fable 5.1 leads |
| Coding | 81.2 | 62.4 | Directional only1 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 65.0 | 53.4 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 70.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 92.9 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 76.6 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 82.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
ARC-AGI-2
Reasoning
Claude Fable 5.1: 90%Inkling-Small: 40.1%Normalized gap 49.9Claude Fable 5.1 source Inkling-Small sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Fable 5.1: 81.2%Inkling-Small: 55.9%Normalized gap 25.3Claude Fable 5.1 source Inkling-Small sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Fable 5.1: 65%Inkling-Small: 47.8%Normalized gap 17.2Claude Fable 5.1 source Inkling-Small 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
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0013
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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
- Inkling-Small
- $0.03332
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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
- Inkling-Small
- $0.0492
- Fits in one request
Inkling-Small 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 5.1Inkling-Small
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5.1
Inkling-Small
1M
API model ID
Claude Fable 5.1
claude-fable-5-1
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchInkling-Small
Not sourced
Cached-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 launchInkling-Small
$0.116 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Inkling-Small
Not sourced
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 launchInkling-Small
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Fable 5.1
Reasoning
Inkling-Small
Hybrid
Weight access
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
License
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Inkling-Small
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Fable 5.1
2026-09-01
Inkling-Small
2026-07-30
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
- Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.74 versus 63.52, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.03332. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.75 vs $0.0492.
- 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 evidence33 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.155.80%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Fable 5.152.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.141.7%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5.131.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5.177.8%SourceInkling-Small54.4%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5.181.5%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5.173.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5.123.7 turnsSourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small77.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small79.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.181.2%SourceInkling-Small55.9%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.189.1%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5.154.7%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Fable 5.167.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5.187.6%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 5.173.4%SourceInkling-Small—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small64.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Fable 5.165%SourceInkling-Small47.8%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.160.9%SourceInkling-Small31.6%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small89.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Fable 5.1—Inkling-Small82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling-Small?
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.74 versus 63.52, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling-Small?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling-Small?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling-Small?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.0013 on Inkling-Small; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.03332; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.0492. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling-Small?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 1, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Inkling-Small
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.