Compare / head-to-head
Claude Fable 5.1vsStep 3.5 Flash
Claude Fable 5.1 and Step 3.5 Flash do not yet share a public benchmark, so quality cannot be compared apples-to-apples. 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
0
no overlap yet
Cheaper per token
—
list price, input + output
Larger context
Claude Fable 5.1
1M tokens
Provider uptime (30d)
100% · —
Anthropic · StepFun
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic · released 2026-09-01
textvision
Step 3.5 Flash
StepFun · released 2026-02-12
text
- Context
- 256K
- Max out
- —
- Input /1M
- —
- Output /1M
- —
- Cached /1M
- —
- Scores
- 18 · 5 core
Quality
Benchmark matrix
0 shared · 8 only Claude Fable 5.1 · 17 only Step 3.5 Flash| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Step 3.5 Flash | Δ | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported by both · 0 | ||||
| No public benchmark is reported for both models yet. | ||||
| Only Claude Fable 5.1 reports · 8 | ||||
| Humanity's Last Exam (no tools) | 60.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| CursorBench 3.2.0 | 73.4% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run) | 87.8% ↗epoch | not reported | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run) | 90.2% ↗epoch | not reported | — | — |
| GDPval-AA v2 | 1853 ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run) | 100% ↗epoch | not reported | — | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% ↗epoch | not reported | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 | 52.6% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Only Step 3.5 Flash reports · 17 | ||||
| SWE-bench Verified | not reported | 74.4% ↗ | — | — |
| AIME 2025 | not reported | 97.3% ↗ | — | — |
| AIME 2026 | not reported | 96.7% ↗matharena | — | — |
| LMArena Elo | not reported | 1403.7 ↗ | — | — |
| BrowseComp | not reported | 51.6% ↗ | — | — |
| BrowseComp (with context manager) | not reported | 69% ↗ | — | — |
| BrowseComp-ZH | not reported | 66.9% ↗ | — | — |
| BrowseComp-ZH (with context manager) | not reported | 73.7% ↗ | — | — |
| GAIA (no file) | not reported | 84.5% ↗ | — | — |
| HMMT 2025 (Feb/Nov average) | not reported | 96.2% ↗ | — | — |
| IMOAnswerBench | not reported | 85.4% ↗ | — | — |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | not reported | 86.4% ↗ | — | — |
| ResearchRubrics | not reported | 65.3% ↗ | — | — |
| Tau2-Bench | not reported | 88.2% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | not reported | 51% ↗ | — | — |
| xbench-DeepSearch 2025.05 | not reported | 83.7% ↗ | — | — |
| xbench-DeepSearch 2025.10 | not reported | 56.3% ↗ | — | — |
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 Step 3.5 Flash 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
Official pricing pages and model cards| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Step 3.5 Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context window | 1M tokens | 256K tokens | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Max output | 128K tokens | — | — |
| Input price / 1M | $10 ↗ | — | — |
| Output price / 1M | $50 ↗ | — | — |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.25 ↗ | — | — |
| Input + output / 1M Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded. | $60 | — | — |
| Modalities | text · vision | text | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-02-12 | — |
| Cited benchmark scores | 8 | 18 | — |
Reliability
Provider status
Last 60 days · refreshed daily on this page · live on /statusMore matchups
Claude Fable 5.1 vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksMore matchups
Step 3.5 Flash vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksBuilt by Respan
Which one wins on your data?
Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Step 3.5 Flash on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.