text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-5.6 Sol are both current text models, from Anthropic and OpenAI. GPT-5.6 Sol is 60% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Fable 5.1, $4 vs $10. On Arena Text, Claude Fable 5.1 scores 1501 Elo and GPT-5.6 Sol 1485 Elo (Arena, measured October 8, 2026). GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger context window, 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens.
Data verified October 13, 2026 · Dataset 2026-10-13
Side by side
Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Price per 1M input tokens | $10 | $4 (better) |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $50 | $20 (better) |
| Arena Text | 1501 Elo (#4 of 49) (better) | 1485 Elo (#11 of 49) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 90.2% (#4 of 40) (better) | 89.1% (#6 of 40) |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% (#5 of 36) (better) | 69.7% (#7 of 36) |
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 93.5% (#11 of 40) |
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release date | September 1, 2026 | July 9, 2026 |
| Access | API only | API only |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Input | text, image | text, image |
| Output | text | text |
What each costs
Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $200 | $80 (better) |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $112.25 | $47.60 (better) |
| The same, through the batch API | $100 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.25 (better) | $0.40 |
| 1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write | $12.50 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write | $20 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, batch | $5 | Not listed |
| 1M output tokens, batch | $25 | Not listed |
When to choose each
Claude Fable 5.1
Where it leads
- Higher Arena Text score, 1501 Elo vs 1485 Elo
- Higher FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) score, 90.2% vs 89.1%
- Higher SimpleQA Verified score, 70.8% vs 69.7%
- Cheaper cached input, $0.25 vs $0.40 per 1M tokens
- Batch pricing, $5 input and $25 output per 1M tokens
Best for
- Long-horizon agentic coding where a large prompt prefix is replayed across many turns
- Work where Claude Opus 5 at higher effort has already been evaluated and fell short
Watch out for
- Base input and output pricing is unchanged from Fable 5 at $10 / $50; the saving is entirely in cache reads, so a workload with little cache reuse sees no discount
- The 4.7-generation tokenizer produces roughly 30% more tokens for the same text than Claude Sonnet 4.6 and earlier, so per-token rates are not directly comparable across generations
- Anthropic’s launch comparisons are self-reported and were not reproduced independently here
GPT-5.6 Sol
Where it leads
- Lower input and output prices, $4 and $20 vs $10 and $50 per 1M tokens
- Larger context window 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens
Best for
- Frontier capability evaluations for complex API workflows
- Long-horizon coding and research agents that use computer use or MCP tools
Watch out for
- Not in the pinned LiveBench snapshot; its independent scores here come from Epoch AI's own GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath and SimpleQA Verified runs
Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is 60% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Fable 5.1, $4 vs $10. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.1 costs $200 and GPT-5.6 Sol $80 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-5.6 Sol?
Claude Fable 5.1 charges $0.25 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and GPT-5.6 Sol $0.40, 90% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.1 costs $112.25 and GPT-5.6 Sol $47.60.
Which scores higher on independent benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-5.6 Sol?
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on Arena Text, 1501 Elo to 1485 Elo; Claude Fable 5.1 leads on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2), 90.2% to 89.1%; Claude Fable 5.1 leads on SimpleQA Verified, 70.8% to 69.7%. Scores are independent evaluations, not either vendor's launch figures.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger context window, 1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens. Both return up to 128,000 tokens per response.
Articles on Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-5.6 Sol
- Fable 5.1 vs Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6: Which to UseSeptember 1, 2026 · compares both
- Grok 4.7 vs Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra: Real Cost per TaskSeptember 23, 2026
- Claude Opus 5.5 Benchmarks: What the Chart Shows and HidesSeptember 23, 2026
- Jev vs Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra: Which Model for Which JobSeptember 22, 2026
- GPT-6 Astra vs Fable 5.1: Two Scoreboards, Two WinnersSeptember 22, 2026
- Claude Fable 5.1: Same Price, 75% Cheaper CacheSeptember 2, 2026
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.7
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs Kimi K3
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Claude Fable 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-5.6 Sol?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty