Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4#2 of 5799.0 score · 3/3 sources · complete#6 of 5784.6 score · 3/3 sources · complete
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#27 of 27$0.824 per LiveBench case#26 of 27$0.520 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.9#14 of 2749.5 score · 3/3 sources · complete#18 of 2746.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$10.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026$10.00Openai ↗ · Sep 4, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$50.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026$50.00Openai ↗ · Sep 4, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,000K1,050K
Model facts checkedSep 2, 2026View model evidence →Sep 4, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1GPT-6 Astra
ARC-AGI-1verified-v1-302d8267c052 · verified_score · leader97.5099% of row best · percent · Claude Fable 5.1 (Max)98.50100% of row best · percent · GPT-6 Astra (XHigh)
ARC-AGI-2verified-v2-bca68e12cc9a · verified_score · leader90.0095% of row best · percent · Claude Fable 5.1 (XHigh)95.00100% of row best · percent · GPT-6 Astra (Max)
LMArena Document Arenadocument-2026-09-13-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader1,512.58100% of row best · rating · claude-fable-5.1-max; 95% CI [1497.40364732, 1527.76498981]; votes 1403; rank 21,467.5297% of row best · rating · gpt-6-astra-max; 95% CI [1453.25995337, 1481.78626802]; votes 1621; rank 16
LMArena Search Arenasearch-2026-10-13-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · statistical tie1,245.85100% of row best · rating · claude-fable-5.1-high; 95% CI [1238.79268797, 1252.89817971]; votes 12782; rank 51,233.6299% of row best · rating · gpt-6-astra-max; 95% CI [1225.77363708, 1241.45798456]; votes 18483; rank 7
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-10-09-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader1,318.24100% of row best · rating · claude-fable-5.1-max; 95% CI [1308.61778049, 1327.86146111]; votes 4648; rank 41,281.3597% of row best · rating · gpt-6-astra-max; 95% CI [1270.63592513, 1292.07239183]; votes 3590; rank 36
LiveBench2026-06-25-90f8d44da965 · overall · leader86.82100% of row best · percent · claude-fable-5-1-max-effort · 16,470 output tokens / case86.47100% of row best · percent · gpt-6-astra-max · 10,407 output tokens / case
ToneBench2026-10-17-10-task-e9c76358afb2 · overall_score · unverified84.53100% of row best · points · Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) · 68,653 output tokens / case82.3297% of row best · points · GPT-6 Astra (max) · 20,449 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie3 benchmark winsOverall lead2 benchmark wins

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost

Full ranking →
Efficiency FrontierLiveBench overall · output estimate
Upper-left is better
xAIZ.aiOpenAIMiniMaxDeepSeekMistral AIQwenGoogle DeepMindMoonshot AIAnthropic
LiveBench quality versus score-adjusted output costEach dot is a reviewed major-model configuration and is colored by developer. Higher means a better LiveBench overall score. Farther left means lower estimated output cost after adjusting by the score. A dotted line connects the non-dominated frontier observations. When models are selected, their sourced families remain prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and an orange ring identifies each selected model.$0.0050$0.010$0.050$0.100$0.500$1.006873798489Grok Build 0.1GLM 5.3 FlashGPT-6 Luna (max)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)GPT-6.1 Sol (max)GPT-6 Astra (max)Claude Fable 5.1Score-adjusted output cost per LiveBench case (log) →LiveBench overall →
The dotted frontier connects measured, non-dominated major-model observations. With a selection, sourced families stay prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and orange rings mark the selected model or models. Family lines connect models only when their sourced family and generation match. Cost is estimated from published output tokens and the lowest current USD output rate; it excludes input, caching, batch discounts, and provider-specific benchmark execution details.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Fable 5.1GPT-6 Astra
DeveloperAnthropicOpenAI
FamilyClaude 5 1Gpt 6
ModelClaude Fable 5.1GPT-6 Astra
VersionClaude Fable 5.1GPT-6 Astra
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-09-012026-09-03
Knowledge cutoff2026-06-012026-04-30
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,050K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard)Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, computer-use, generation, reasoning, research, tools

Claude Fable 5.1 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-fable-5-1

GPT-6 Astra Capabilities

chatcomputer-usegenerationreasoningresearchtools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDopenai/gpt-6-astra

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra FAQs

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is $10.00 and GPT-6 Astra is $10.00 per million tokens, so they are tied on this metric. Claude Fable 5.1 is $50.00 and GPT-6 Astra is $50.00 per million tokens, so they are tied on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra?+

GPT-6 Astra has the larger sourced context window. Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1,000,000 tokens and GPT-6 Astra supports 1,050,000 tokens.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra?+

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 6 protocol-matched benchmarks from 3 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; GPT-6 Astra is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra understand images?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; GPT-6 Astra is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra?+

Both models have the same sourced maximum output: 128,000 tokens each.

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. GPT-6 Astra: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra?+

Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; GPT-6 Astra has 2, so GPT-6 Astra has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra?+

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