Compare / head-to-head

Claude Fable 5.1vsMercury 2.5

Claude Fable 5.1 leads 1 of 1 shared benchmark. Mercury 2.5 is 63.2x cheaper per token. Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger context window (1M tokens).

Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.

Shared benchmarks
1 – 0
Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Cheaper per token
Mercury 2.5
63.2x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
Claude Fable 5.1
1M tokens
Providers
2 providers
Anthropic · Inception
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic · released 2026-09-01
textvision
Context
1M
Max out
128K
Input /1M
$10 ↗
Output /1M
$50 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.25
Scores
36 · 9 core
Mercury 2.5
Inception · released 2026-09-08
text
Context
260K
Max out
66K
Input /1M
$0.2 ↗
Output /1M
$0.75 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.02
Scores
1 · 0 core
Quality

Benchmark matrix

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Mercury 2.5ΔEdge
Reported by both · 1
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals AI)58.1% ↗0% ↗+58.1 ptClaude Fable 5.1
Only Claude Fable 5.1 reports · 31
Humanity's Last Exam (no tools)60.9% ↗not reported——
LMArena Elo1501.1 ↗not reported——
APEX-Agents (Mercor)68.6% ↗not reported——
Chess Puzzles (Epoch AI run)47% ↗epoch runnot reported——
CursorBench 3.2.073.4% ↗not reported——
EBR-bench (Epoch AI run)57.1% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run)87.8% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run)90.2% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierSWE V2 (Proximal Labs)56.3% ↗not reported——
Furniture Assembly (Epoch AI run)70% ↗epoch runnot reported——
GDPval-AA v21853 ↗not reported——
GSO Opt@1 (GSO)87.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Agentic Coding (LiveBench)66.1% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Coding (LiveBench)86.4% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Data Analysis (LiveBench)80.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Instruction Following (LiveBench)73% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Language (LiveBench)89.5% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Mathematics (LiveBench)97% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Reasoning (LiveBench)91.7% ↗not reported——
LMArena Agent (LMArena)0.1431 ↗not reported——
LMArena Vision (LMArena)1287.7 ↗not reported——
LMArena WebDev (LMArena)1749.2 ↗not reported——
MirrorCode (Epoch AI run)73.3% ↗epoch runnot reported——
Mystery Game Puzzles (Epoch AI run)58% ↗epoch runnot reported——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run)100% ↗epoch runnot reported——
SAGE (Vals AI)48.5% ↗not reported——
SimpleBench (SimpleBench)86.6% ↗not reported——
SimpleQA Verified70.8% ↗epoch runnot reported——
Terminal-Bench Science 0.152.6% ↗not reported——
Vending-Bench 2 (Andon Labs)5421.56 ↗not reported——
WeirdML (Håvard Tveit Ihle)92.9% ↗not reported——
Only Mercury 2.5 reports · 0
Mercury 2.5 reports nothing Claude Fable 5.1 does not.
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is Claude Fable 5.1 minus Mercury 2.5 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing

Side by side

SpecClaude Fable 5.1Mercury 2.5Edge
Context window1M tokens260K tokensClaude Fable 5.1
Max output128K tokens66K tokensClaude Fable 5.1
Input price / 1M$10 ↗$0.2 ↗Mercury 2.5
Output price / 1M$50 ↗$0.75 ↗Mercury 2.5
Cached input / 1M$0.25 ↗$0.02 ↗Mercury 2.5
Input + output / 1M
Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded.
$60$0.95Mercury 2.5
Modalitiestext · visiontextClaude Fable 5.1
Released2026-09-012026-09-08—
Cited benchmark scores361—
Reliability

Provider status

All providers →
More matchups

Claude Fable 5.1 vs …

Built by Respan
Which one wins on your data?

Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Mercury 2.5 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.