RankingClaude Fable 5.1

Claude Fable 5.1

Data updated 22 Oct 2026

66 published benchmark measures · 16 benchmark families contribute across 5 task areas. 4 capability estimates available in the full profile. See all results ↓ · Compare published benchmarks →

Model evidence summary

This profile combines published settings. It is not a runnable configuration or a leaderboard rank. Compare measured configurations →

Performance profile

Capabilities

Adjusted comparison score · 0–100

Filled points are supported; hollow points are preliminary. Lines stop at unknown capabilities. Exact values and sources follow below.

Agentic5 families · 0 with independent evidence · Supported97.1

5 core families; 4 direct opponents across 2 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 96.3–98.0; 0/13 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 94.0–97.8; 0/15 unsupported. Smoothing check: 90.7–98.9; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage; source sensitivity still requires inspection. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

AutomationBench: 87.5 observed win share
Anthropic, OpenAI · Source 1 Source 2
GDPval: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1
OSWorld: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1 Source 2
OfficeQA: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1 Source 2
Terminal-Bench Science: 75.0 observed win share
OpenAI · Source 1

Hard reasoning4 families · 2 with independent evidence · Supported81.4

4 core families; 61 direct opponents across 10 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 75.6–85.1; 0/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 71.9–82.7; 0/16 unsupported. Smoothing check: 74.4–84.3; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

GPQA: 40.0 observed win share
OpenAI, artificialanalysis.ai · Source 1 Source 2
ARC-AGI: 52.2 observed win share
Anthropic, OpenAI, arcprize.org · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5
Humanity’s Last Exam: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic, OpenAI · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
FrontierMath: 50.0 observed win share
OpenAI · Source 1

Coding4 families · 1 with independent evidence · Supported93.9

4 core families; 21 direct opponents across 7 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 90.8–96.6; 0/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 92.6–94.9; 0/19 unsupported. Smoothing check: 86.0–97.0; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Terminal-Bench: 88.6 observed win share
Anthropic, OpenAI, tbench.ai · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
SWE-bench Multilingual: 50.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1
SWE-bench Pro: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1
DeepSWE: 0.0 observed win share
OpenAI · Source 1

Human prefNo comparable evidenceUnknown

0 core families; 0 direct opponents across 0 labs. No admitted core comparisons

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 1/1 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 1/1 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: cross-family and cross-publisher predictions could not be evaluated from the available comparison network. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Knowledge2 families · 0 with independent evidence · PreliminaryUnknown

2 core families; 2 direct opponents across 1 labs. No connected comparison to the complete reference panel

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 4/4 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 5/5 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: almost no publisher-held-out comparisons remained estimable. Cross-source validity is unresolved. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Gmmlu: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1
Milu: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1

Multimodal1 families · 0 with independent evidence · Preliminary95.1

1 core families; 2 direct opponents across 1 labs. Needs broader benchmark and opponent support

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 8/8 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 8/8 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: limited publisher-held-out coverage. Cross-source validity is unresolved. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Chartography: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1 Source 2

Long contextNo comparable evidenceUnknown

0 core families; 0 direct opponents across 0 labs. No admitted core comparisons

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 5/5 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 5/5 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts underperformed neutral predictions. Treat this as an exploratory estimate. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Scores estimate outcomes against a shared reference panel; they are not accuracy percentages. Sparse or disconnected evidence cannot qualify an overall profile. Open a capability to inspect its evidence.

Reported effort · Mixed settings

Settings reported in this model's published benchmark results, including results outside the aggregate. Effort names are provider-specific. These are not API defaults or equal compute budgets.

Auto thinking: 2 observations
High: 1 observations
Max: 34 observations
Medium: 3 observations
XHigh: 4 observations
Not specified: 65 observations

Mixed settings means multiple settings occur in the evidence. Best across efforts means the source selected its best reported result across settings; it does not mean Max. Unspecified settings stay unknown. This model-summary chart combines reported settings. The leaderboard keeps identified configurations separate and excludes unknown effort.

Inspect each result and its source ↓ · Download effort evidence

Score contributions and missing evidence

16 contributing families across 5 capabilities. Fixed reference panels do not change when the catalog expands.

Capability is fitted jointly across families. Capability estimates below describe different task areas; their weighted sum is not the Capability score.

Results without reviewed compatibility or a reference match remain in the raw evidence below. Coverage counts only contributing results.

Model information & shareable badge

Lab: Anthropic
Catalog status: active
Availability: Public provider catalog; account and region restrictions may apply
Family: Claude Fable
Released: —
Context: 1,000,000 tokens
License: proprietary
Model card: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-deprecations
Default Capability family coverage: /badge/claude-fable-5-1.svg

Benchmark scores & sources

Original results, evaluation harnesses, and evidence behind this model.

Benchmark	Bucket	Score	Harness	Evidence	Source-recorded date
AA Briefcase · 1.1	Supporting evidence	1678 Reported settings & source Grok 4.7 XHigh (DeepSWE: High); Grok 4.6 High; GPT-5.6 Sol Max; Claude Fable 5.1 Max. Launch comparison; per-model agent harness, evaluation budget and rerun provenance are not specified. Official launch table. Effort follows the column header except the Grok 4.7 DeepSWE asterisk, which explicitly means High. Original evaluator: https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/aa-briefcase Comparison limit: Secondary Artificial Analysis leaderboard report; not an additional independent evaluation. Use the original evaluator for reviewed exact-configuration comparisons. Grok 4.7 launch comparison · Model Improvements table: AA Briefcase · reviewed 2026-09-21	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Secondary Artificial Analysis leaderboard report; not an additional independent evaluation. Use the original evaluator for reviewed exact-configuration comparisons.	Reviewed 2026-09-21
AA-Briefcase	Supporting evidence	1694 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis long-horizon knowledge projects; rubric and panel pairwise judging; Claude max effort. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · Table8.1.A;8.15.4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
AA-Briefcase	Supporting evidence	1686 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis; xhigh effort. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: XHigh	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
AA-Briefcase	Supporting evidence	1611 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis; high effort. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: High	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
AA-Briefcase	Supporting evidence	61.5% Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis; max effort; component rubric pass. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
AA-Briefcase	Supporting evidence	2025 rating Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis; max effort; component analytical quality. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
AA-Briefcase	Supporting evidence	1495 rating Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis; max effort; component presentation. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
ARC-AGI · 1	Hard reasoning	97.5% Reported settings & source ARC Prize semi-private validation; verified Fable5.1 max effort; comparator figures as reported in summary. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · Table8.1.A;8.16 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
ARC-AGI · 2	Hard reasoning	90% Reported settings & source ARC Prize semi-private validation; verified Fable5.1 max effort; comparator figures as reported in summary. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · Table8.1.A;8.16 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
ARC-AGI-1 · 1	Hard reasoning	97.5% Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Abstract Reasoning table / ARC-AGI-1 / Claude Fable 5.1 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
ARC-AGI-2	Hard reasoning	90%	ARC Prize verified Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-09-01
ARC-AGI-2 · 2	Hard reasoning	90% Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Abstract Reasoning table / ARC-AGI-2 / Claude Fable 5.1 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
Artificial Analysis Cyber Index	Supporting evidence	25.0195230207051	Artificial Analysis Stirrup · Cyber Index v1.0 · max Effort: Max Cyber Index source settings Artificial Analysis Stirrup, v1.0. Display only. This composite measures defensive source-code tasks. Successful capability scores depend on safety refusals, and refusal rates are reported separately. It does not enter weighted Overall. Official Cyber Index board	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-21
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1 · v4.1.1	Supporting evidence	65.7 index score Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Professional table / Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1 / Claude Fable 5.1 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit.	Reviewed 2026-09-06
AutomationBench	Agentic	31.4% Reported settings & source Private held-out board; simulated business-workflow app APIs; all assertions must pass; max effort stated for Fable5.1/Opus5. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · Table8.1.A;8.15.6 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
AutomationBench	Agentic	31.4% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Private test set; results sourced from the official Zapier public leaderboard. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Private test set; results sourced from the official Zapier public leaderboard. Methodology https://deepmind.google/models/evals-methodology/gemini-4-argon, SHA256 ff1df6bdeddc4c0f48840c09a8a7813b10ae7ad9e053892da68dabf64f09bff7. Preserve source rounding. Methodology says capabilities as of September 2026 and results as of October 2026; review date is source retrieval, not evaluation date. Comparison limit: Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison. Google Gemini 4 Argon launch and evaluation methodology · Launch grid row 2: AutomationBench / Claude Fable 5.1; methodology Additional Details · reviewed 2026-09-30	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-30
AutomationBench · 1.0.6	Agentic	31.4% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort max. End-to-end business workflows using 47 tools across six business functions. OpenAI research environment or API; same named metric and evaluation chart. Reported combined setup: Fable 5.1 w/ Opus 5 fallback. Fallback behavior must not be attributed to the base model alone. Provider-published lab self-report. Published chart cost per task $2.45; source-specific cost does not establish consensus workload efficiency. The launch caption says fallback costs are omitted and fallbacks occurred on about 40% of tasks. Competitor results are republished from public reports; the page does not establish independent reproduction by OpenAI. Comparison limit: Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting. Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol · Chart: AutomationBench / Fable 5.1 w/ Opus 5 fallback / max · reviewed 2026-09-29	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.	Reviewed 2026-09-29
AutomationBench · not specified	Agentic	31.4% Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Professional table / AutomationBench / Claude Fable 5.1 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
AutomationBench-AA	Supporting evidence	59.37591715646424%	Artificial Analysis AutomationBench-AA Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-20
AutoResearchExam	Supporting evidence	0.602	AutoResearchExam Terminus 2 Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-09-09
BenchCAD · not specified	Supporting evidence	84.3% Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API; tools enabled; three Anthropic evaluation modifications Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. Astra launch footnote5: Claude scores use three modifications described in the Fable5.1 system card; not same controlled setting. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Professional table / BenchCAD / Claude Fable 5.1 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
BenchCAD · Vision2Code 1000-file subset	Supporting evidence	0.437 voxel IoU Reported settings & source Random1000 of17900files; five runs; adaptive thinking max; no tools; corrected camera prompt, raw shapes accepted, last code fence parsed. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.14.2 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
BenchCAD · Vision2Code 1000-file subset	Supporting evidence	0.843 voxel IoU Reported settings & source Random1000 of17900files; five runs; adaptive thinking max; with tools; corrected camera prompt, raw shapes accepted, last code fence parsed. Fable is the safeguarded deployed configuration; selected tasks may use disclosed Opus fallback, except evaluations explicitly counting safety blocks as failures. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.14.2 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
Bug Hunt Bench	Supporting evidence	40.95%	Bug Hunt Bench · max Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-09-01
Bug Hunt Bench	Supporting evidence	31.43%	Bug Hunt Bench · high Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-09-01