Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3

Benchmark Performance

Available Benchmarks

No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.
FieldAt a Glance
Anthropic · activeClaude Fable 5.1Verified Sep 2, 2026
Z.ai · activeGLM 5.3Verified Aug 29, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.3
DeveloperAnthropicZ.ai
FamilyClaude 5 1Glm 5 3
ModelClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.3
VersionClaude Fable 5.1GLM-5.3
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-09-01Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2026-06-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,000K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Together Ai (Standard), Z.ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

13 comparable fields · 7 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate

Claude Fable 5.1 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Input price$10.00
Output price$50.00
Serving providers1
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-fable-5-1

GLM 5.3 Capabilities

agentschatreasoningstructured outputstools
Input price$1.20
Output price$4.00
Serving providers4
Canonical IDzai-org/glm-5.3

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

All text comparisons →
APairBContext
vsfamily variantsimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peerstext
vscross-developer peersimage, text
vscross-developer peersimage, text

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3 FAQs

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.3, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is $10.00 and GLM 5.3 is $1.20 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 is cheaper on this metric. Claude Fable 5.1 is $50.00 and GLM 5.3 is $4.00 per million tokens, so GLM 5.3 is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Claude Fable 5.1 is 1,000K and GLM 5.3 is 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; GLM 5.3 is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.3 understand images?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; GLM 5.3 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3?+

GLM 5.3 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Fable 5.1 supports 128K and GLM 5.3 supports 131K output tokens.

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5.3 support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GLM 5.3: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3?+

Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; GLM 5.3 has 4, so GLM 5.3 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or GLM 5.3?+

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.

Send Feedback