Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2 | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort | #19 of 2241.8 score |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort | #2 of 36$0.0060 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0 | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort | #1 of 2270.9 score |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1verified-v1-15fb467fd4fc · verified_score · leader | 97.50100% of row best · percent · Claude Fable 5.1 (Max) | 89.0091% of row best · percent · DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) |
| ARC-AGI-2verified-v2-9a3db289984e · verified_score · leader | 90.00100% of row best · percent · Claude Fable 5.1 (XHigh) | 61.3968% of row best · percent · DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Family | Claude 5 1 | Deepseek V4 Flash |
| Model | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash |
| Version | Claude Fable 5.1 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-04-24 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 290.9B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 13B |
| License | Unknown | mit |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | DeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning |
14 comparable fields · 11 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Claude Fable 5.1 Capabilities
DeepSeek V4 Flash Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Fable 5Anthropic | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | DeepSeek-V3.2DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash FAQs
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+
Claude Fable 5.1 is $10.00 and DeepSeek V4 Flash is $0.0868 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Fable 5.1 is $50.00 and DeepSeek V4 Flash is $0.1736 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1,000K and DeepSeek V4 Flash supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash be self-hosted?+
DeepSeek V4 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; DeepSeek V4 Flash is open weight.
Can Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash understand images?+
Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; DeepSeek V4 Flash is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Fable 5.1 is 128K and DeepSeek V4 Flash is —.
Do Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. DeepSeek V4 Flash: reasoning. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+
Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; DeepSeek V4 Flash has 5, so DeepSeek V4 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.