RankingEffort benchmarks

Claude Fable 5.1

Compare models

148 measured results · 6 effort settings · 78 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AClaude Fable 5.1 · Max4 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A81.9Supported
Hard reasoning
A78.1Supported
Coding
A89.4Supported
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A77.7Supported
Multimodal
Unknown
Long context
A87.2Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Claude Fable 5.1 · Max: 89.9 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

6 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Which sources carry the weight?

Anthropic · 24.3% direct comparison weight · provider report
Cognition · 11.3% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Terminal-Bench · 11.2% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
LiveBench · 11.0% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Vals AI · 10.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Epoch AI · 10.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Artificial Analysis · 10.4% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
ARC Prize · 10.3% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

Terminal-Bench · 18.0% direct comparison weight
FrontierCode · 11.3% direct comparison weight
ARC-AGI · 10.3% direct comparison weight
AutomationBench · 6.6% direct comparison weight
Chartography · 6.1% direct comparison weight
Other families (32) · 47.8% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-23.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	8 → 10	Down 2	203 remaining / 241 lost	89.9 (+0.0 points)
ARC Prize	8 → 12	Down 4	444 remaining / 0 lost	90.4 (+0.5 points)
Datacurve	8 → 9	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	88.5 (-1.4 points)
LiveCodeBench	8 → 8	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	89.9 (-0.0 points)
Scale	8 → 9	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	90.1 (+0.2 points)
Terminal-Bench	8 → 5	Up 3	444 remaining / 0 lost	90.0 (+0.1 points)
Cognition	8 → 3	Up 5	444 remaining / 0 lost	90.4 (+0.5 points)
LiveBench	8 → 6	Up 2	443 remaining / 1 lost	91.6 (+1.7 points)
SWE-rebench	8 → 8	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	89.7 (-0.2 points)
Epoch AI	8 → 9	Down 1	431 remaining / 13 lost	89.9 (+0.0 points)
Vals AI	8 → 9	Down 1	443 remaining / 1 lost	89.0 (-0.9 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	8 → 15	Down 7	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.8 (-6.1 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	8 → 8	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	89.8 (-0.1 points)
Provider reports · Meta	8 → 8	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	89.8 (-0.1 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	8 → 8	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	89.9 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	8 → 6	Up 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	89.8 (-0.1 points)
All provider reports	8 → 13	Down 5	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.3 (-6.6 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
deepswe	88.6	-1.4
harvey	90.7	+0.8
livebench-data	90.4	+0.5
frontiercode	90.4	+0.5
livebench-instructions	90.3	+0.4
multi-swe-bench	89.6	-0.3
livebench-coding	89.6	-0.3
vals-excel-modeling	89.6	-0.3
vals-legal-research	89.7	-0.3
simpleqa	90.2	+0.3
arc-agi-3	89.7	-0.3
vals-tax-agent	89.7	-0.2
livebench-math	89.7	-0.2
mmmu-pro	90.1	+0.2
swe-rebench	89.7	-0.2
swe-atlas-test-writing	89.7	-0.2
epoch-game-puzzles	89.7	-0.2
gpqa	90.1	+0.2
frontiermath	89.7	-0.2
omniscience	90.0	+0.1
gdp-pdf	90.0	+0.1
vibe-code	89.8	-0.1
briefcase	89.8	-0.1
arc-agi	89.8	-0.1
swe-atlas-qna	89.8	-0.1
vals-finance-agent	90.0	+0.1
terminal-bench	90.0	+0.1
ifbench	89.8	-0.1
tau-bench	89.8	-0.1
analyst-agent	89.8	-0.1
itbench	90.0	+0.1
vals-code-migration	90.0	+0.1
hle	90.0	+0.1
critpt	90.0	+0.1
enigma-eval	90.0	+0.1
terminal-bench-science	89.8	-0.1
gdpval	89.9	-0.1
aime	89.9	-0.0
mmlu-pro	89.9	-0.0
livebench-language	89.9	+0.0
swe-atlas-refactoring	89.9	+0.0
automationbench	89.9	+0.0
apex-agents	89.9	+0.0
livebench-reasoning	89.9	-0.0
livecodebench	89.9	-0.0
enterprise-ops	89.9	+0.0
gmmlu	89.9	-0.0
aa-lcr	89.9	-0.0
swe-bench-pro	89.9	+0.0
math500	89.9	-0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 257 observations, 127 contributing, 2 matched without graph weight and 128 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

10 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
5 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
2 · Starred protocol annotation requires row-specific review before ranking.
7 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
1 · Effort is not identified
1 · The v2 methodology discloses Opus 5 fallback on tasks blocked by content filters. The task-summary mean 56.52830% differs from the published headline mean@5 56.29079%; the headline score is retained.
1 · The board does not publish an effort setting for this row.
4 · No matched, identified effort unit; duplicates and unnamed comparators do not add evidence
2 · No matched opponent in this evaluation unit
5 · Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.
35 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
17 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
1 · Historical provider claim; secondary and superseded for current FrontierSWE comparisons by the independent Proximal FrontierSWE v2 mean@5 board at https://www.frontierswe.com/. Version-unspecified claims are not v2 results. Excluded from weighted Overall.
1 · Secondary GDPval-AA v2 leaderboard report; the original evaluator already supplies this exact configuration. Reprinted or rerated board snapshots are not additional evaluation evidence.
4 · System card section8.15.5 confirms11of324trials were partly or fully completed by Opus4.8fallback; actual mixed-model execution, not merely available fallback.
16 · Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison.
1 · Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison. Historical provider claim; secondary and superseded for current FrontierSWE comparisons by the independent Proximal FrontierSWE v2 mean@5 board at https://www.frontierswe.com/. Version-unspecified claims are not v2 results. Excluded from weighted Overall.
2 · Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit.
1 · Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.
5 · The launch table does not establish matching agent harnesses and evaluation settings. Retained as a provider claim; not a new comparable evaluation.
1 · Secondary Artificial Analysis leaderboard report; not an additional independent evaluation. Use the original evaluator for reviewed exact-configuration comparisons.
1 · Secondary Harvey leaderboard report; not an additional independent evaluation. Use the original Vals AI evaluation with its reviewed effort settings.
1 · Secondary Artificial Analysis leaderboard report; retain the original evaluator once, without treating the launch reprint as additional evidence.
4 · Legacy self-report lacks a reviewed comparison configuration

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Low	Medium	High	XHigh	Max	Unspecified
AA-AnalystAgentArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks solved on all 5 of 5 attempts · 80 tasks, 5 attempts per task · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	57.5% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,481.82 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	1,527.66 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	1,580.33 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	1,654.53 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	1,672.26 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	82.33% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	84.67% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	83.67% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	83% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	85.33% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	52.24% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	54.66% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	55.32% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	57.77% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	59.38% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	27.71% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	29.14% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	30.29% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	31.14% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	29.71% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	28% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	26.8% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	26.8% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	26.2% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	26.2% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,468.77 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	1,545.43 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	1,634.67 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	1,732.14 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	1,754.07 Elo Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	88.08% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	88.59% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	90.61% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	93.43% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	93.74% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1: Hallucination-Gated All-Pass RateArtificial Analysis · Stirrup; Harvey private dataset v1.1.0; 120 tasks across 24 practice areas; up to 200 turns; internet disabled; GPT-6 Sol, Grok 4.7 and Claude Opus 5.5 rubric judges; GPT-6 Sol High two-pass hallucination check; hallucination-gated all-pass averaged across judges Benchmark details Average over tasks of the share of the judge panel finding every rubric criterion passed, with a task zeroed on any material hallucination · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	6.39% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	48.89% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	53.8% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	55.93% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	58.71% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	59.13% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
ITBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Combined public and private Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) tasks · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	49.53% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	71.11% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	34.13 Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	37.6 Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	40.8 Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	42.38 Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	43.45 Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	60.23% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	63.1% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	64.93% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	66.22% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	67.23% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	56.71% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	56.37% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	58.68% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	60.88% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	63.08% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	38.97% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	41.03% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	43.09% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	45.77% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	47.22% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Artificial Analysis · mini-swe-agent; Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1.0; 70 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats Benchmark details Share of tasks passed (pass@1), averaged over three repeats · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	43.33% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	85.02% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	88.01% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	89.89% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	91.01% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	91.39% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	40.4% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-low	44.95% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-medium	52.02% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high	55.05% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Xhigh, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-xhigh	52.02% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max, Default Fallback); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1	Not reported
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize · v2 Semi-Private Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	78.33% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Low); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-fable-5-1-low; 120 tasks	86.25% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Medium); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-fable-5-1-medium; 120 tasks	88.75% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (High); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-fable-5-1-high; 120 tasks	90% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (XHigh); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-fable-5-1-xhigh; 120 tasks	90% Reported settings Claude Fable 5.1 (Max); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-fable-5-1-max; 120 tasks	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · extended-claude-codeCognition · claude-code Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; claude-code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	61.62% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	63.6% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	62.68% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	61.35% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort xhigh; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	62.03% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort max; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · main-claude-codeCognition · claude-code Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; claude-code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	49.82% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	50.91% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	50.34% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	48.73% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort xhigh; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	50.28% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort max; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	Not reported
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · claudecodeTerminal-Bench · Claude Code Benchmark details Terminal-Bench 4.0; Claude Code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	57.9% Reported settings Terminal-Bench 4.0.0; 66 tasks; Claude Code; effort max; reported margin ±3.8 percentage points, confidence level unspecified; release date 2026-09-01; board checked 2026-10-07	Not reported
HLE · text only · Scale official evaluationScale · Scale official evaluation Benchmark details Scale text-only public HLE subset; shares the full HLE family budget; automatic answer judging. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	46.8% Reported settings Scale text-only public HLE subset; shares the full HLE family budget; automatic answer judging.; published row 2026-09-03T18:19:45.000Z; reported margin ±2.1 percentage points; Potential contamination warning: This model was evaluated after the public release of HLE, allowing model builder access to the prompts and solutions.	Not reported	Not reported
HLE · full · Scale official evaluationScale · Scale official evaluation Benchmark details Scale full public HLE; 2,500 questions; automatic answer judging; temperature 0 when configurable. Public-set contamination caveats retained per result. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	46.5% Reported settings Scale full public HLE; 2,500 questions; automatic answer judging; temperature 0 when configurable. Public-set contamination caveats retained per result.; published row 2026-09-03T18:22:21.000Z; reported margin ±2 percentage points; Potential contamination warning: This model was evaluated after the public release of HLE, allowing model builder access to the prompts and solutions.	Not reported	Not reported

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,916 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

Claude Fable 5.1

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results