Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Fable 5.1

Anthropic

82.74/100

Estimated · Public rank #1

90% interval 71.2–94.3

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Updated September 1, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Ornith AI

47.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #150

90% interval 38.0–57.8

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.74 versus 47.9, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

6 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.

  • 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

    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

  • 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

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    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.

Shared results
6
Claude Fable 5.1 only
12
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B only
12
Like-for-like categories
0 / 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
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
71.5
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Fable 5.1
65.0
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
34.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
67.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
90.0
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
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.

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
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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
Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B 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.

Documented inputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5.1

Reasoning

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Fable 5.1

2026-09-01

Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

2026-08-18

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 47.9, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
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%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Fable 5.152.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.141.7%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Fable 5.131.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Fable 5.177.8%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B48.7%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Fable 5.181.5%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Fable 5.173.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Fable 5.123.7 turns
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B33.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 5.181.2%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B59.6%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Fable 5.189.1%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B71.4%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Fable 5.154.7%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Fable 5.167.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B22%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Fable 5.187.6%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 5.173.4%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B67.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • frontierBench

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B5.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B46.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Fable 5.197.50%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Fable 5.190%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5.165%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Fable 5.160.9%
    Source
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B25.6%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • GPQA

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B89.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.74 versus 47.9, 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 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

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 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

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 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

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 Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 1, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.