AI ScoreboardFrontend & Coding Index← Back to rankings

MODEL PROFILE / EDITION 2026.09

Claude Fable 5.1

Senior teams shipping production frontends who want the strongest all-round model and will pay for it

AnthropicRank 1Confidence ANo prior snapshot
85.3

Balanced model evidence score; rank 1. No rank delta is shown because there is no prior numeric snapshot.

Best for

Senior teams shipping production frontends who want the strongest all-round model and will pay for it

Price & access

$10 in / $50 out per 1M; cache read $0.25 (75% cheaper than Fable 5), cache write $12.50; Anthropic reports ~25% lower typical workload cost and up to ~45% savings on complex agentic coding vs Fable 5

Evidence summary

First-party launch post, Bedrock card, Anthropic pricing page, plus two independent human-preference boards and a third-party SWE-bench Pro leaderboard all place it at or near the top.

Edition status

No prior snapshot. Tracked in the September 2026 baseline.

Strengths

  • SWE-bench Pro rank 1 (81.2%) and AA Intelligence Index rank 1 (57)
  • Arena WebDev Frontend rank 2 (1796) plus Design Arena Website rank 3 (1330) - strong on both human-preference boards
  • Best-documented debugging evidence (Red Hat diagnosed every broken build; Millennium's one-in-a-million crash)
  • Cache reads at $0.25 cut agentic loop costs sharply

Tradeoffs

  • $10/$50 top-tier pricing
  • AA measured TTFT of 266.51 s at max effort
  • Anthropic's own table shows Fable 5 ahead on Terminal-Bench 4.0 in the Mythos row - effort settings matter
  • Arena row has only 1,893 votes

Score profile

visual 96 · code 97 · agentic 97 · debug 96 · context 92 · speed 46 · value 40

Linked evidence

Evidence source 1 ↗Evidence source 2 ↗Evidence source 3 ↗Evidence source 4 ↗Evidence source 5 ↗Evidence source 6 ↗Evidence source 7 ↗
Compare this model on the full scoreboard

Use the same published data, filters, and side-by-side metrics.

Open comparison view →