Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 80.2
- Supported · #1/152
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1 vs LLaDA2.2-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.
2 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.
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
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
LLaDA2.2-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
LLaDA2.2-flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. LLaDA2.2-flash does not fit this workload in one request. LLaDA2.2-flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
22 Claude Fable 5.1 only
2 Shared
6 LLaDA2.2-flash only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Fable 5.1 only
- 22
- LLaDA2.2-flash only
- 6
- 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
- 84.3
- Supported · #1/151
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 79.4
- #2/20
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 86.7
- Supported · #1/183
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | LLaDA2.2-flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 80.2Supported · #1/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 84.3Supported · #1/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 79.4#2/20 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 86.7Supported · #1/183 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 0 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.
SWE Multilingual
Coding
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.1%LLaDA2.2-flash: 25%Normalized gap 64.1Claude Fable 5.1 source LLaDA2.2-flash sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Fable 5.1: 81.2%LLaDA2.2-flash: 30.1%Normalized gap 51.1Claude Fable 5.1 source LLaDA2.2-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
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
LLaDA2.2-flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
LLaDA2.2-flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.75
- Fits in one request
- LLaDA2.2-flash
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
LLaDA2.2-flash does not fit this workload in one request. LLaDA2.2-flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5.1LLaDA2.2-flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5.1
LLaDA2.2-flash
API model ID
Claude Fable 5.1
claude-fable-5-1
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchLLaDA2.2-flash
inclusionAI/LLaDA2.2-flash
InclusionAI LLaDA2.2-flash model cardCached-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 launchLLaDA2.2-flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI LLaDA2.2-flash model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
LLaDA2.2-flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
LLaDA2.2-flash
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 launchLLaDA2.2-flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Fable 5.1
Reasoning
LLaDA2.2-flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
LLaDA2.2-flash
Open Weight
License
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
LLaDA2.2-flash
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Fable 5.1
2026-09-01
LLaDA2.2-flash
2026-07-16
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
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- 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 evidence30 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.155.80%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Fable 5.152.6%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.141.7%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5.131.4%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5.177.8%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5.181.5%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5.173.1%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5.123.7 turnsSourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.185.0%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Claude Fable 5.1—LLaDA2.2-flash80.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Fable 5.1—LLaDA2.2-flash64.2%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Claude Fable 5.1—LLaDA2.2-flash81.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Fable 5.1—LLaDA2.2-flash46.2%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Fable 5.1—LLaDA2.2-flash60.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Fable 5.143 fixesSourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.181.2%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash30.1%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.189.1%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash25%SourceClaude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5.154.7%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Fable 5.167.4%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 5.156.3%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5.187.6%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 5.173.4%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.190.5%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 5.1—LLaDA2.2-flash49.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Fable 5.165%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.160.9%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.193.4%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.192.4%SourceLLaDA2.2-flash—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or LLaDA2.2-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 LLaDA2.2-flash?
LLaDA2.2-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 LLaDA2.2-flash?
LLaDA2.2-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 LLaDA2.2-flash?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or LLaDA2.2-flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs LLaDA2.2-flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.