Model A

Anthropic

82.74/100

Estimated · Public rank #1

90% interval 71.2–94.3

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Model B

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

78.55/100

Supported · Public rank #7

90% interval 76.4–80.7

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 78.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

7 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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

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
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.

11 Claude Fable 5.1 only

7 Shared

47 Qwen3.8 Max only

Shared results: 7
Claude Fable 5.1 only: 11
Qwen3.8 Max only: 47
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

1 category uses 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

Like-for-like

Claude Fable 5.1: 81.2
Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7
Weighted basis: 1 vs 1 rows
Reading: Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Fable 5.1: 65.0
Qwen3.8 Max: 50.2
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1
Weighted basis: 0 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 90.0
Qwen3.8 Max: 78.3
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.3
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 82.8
Weighted basis: 0 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Claude Fable 5.1	Qwen3.8 Max	Weighted basis	Reading
Coding	81.2	67.7	Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows	Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Knowledge	65.0	50.2	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Agentic	Not measured	86.1	Not comparable0 vs 1 rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	90.0	78.3	Not comparable1 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not measured	86.3	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not measured	82.8	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.

HLE
Knowledge
Claude Fable 5.1: 65%Qwen3.8 Max: 43.6%Normalized gap 21.4Claude Fable 5.1 source Qwen3.8 Max source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Fable 5.1: 81.2%Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7%Normalized gap 13.5Claude Fable 5.1 source Qwen3.8 Max 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
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max 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
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max 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
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8 Max 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 5.1Qwen3.8 Max

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Fable 5.1

Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 system card

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Claude Fable 5.1

claude-fable-5-1

Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launch

Qwen3.8 Max

qwen3.8-max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

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 launch

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

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 launch

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5.1

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

License

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Fable 5.1

2026-09-01

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

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 estimate, 82.74 versus 78.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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 evidence65 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.155.80%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Fable 5.152.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.141.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5.131.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5.177.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5.181.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5.173.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5.123.7 turns
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.181.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.189.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5.154.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Fable 5.167.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5.187.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 5.173.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max81.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max60.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-1
Claude Fable 5.197.50%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Fable 5.190%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Fable 5.165%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.160.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Claude Fable 5.1—
Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 78.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 1, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Coding

Knowledge

Agentic

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max