Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi-4 Reasoning

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
Microsoft · activePhi-4 ReasoningVerified Aug 28, 2026

Technical Differences

Side-by-Side Facts

Indexable
FieldClaude Fable 5.1Phi-4-reasoning
DeveloperAnthropicMicrosoft
FamilyClaude 5 1Phi 4 Reasoning
ModelClaude Fable 5.1Phi-4-reasoning
VersionClaude Fable 5.1Phi-4-reasoning
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-09-012025-04-30
Knowledge cutoff2026-06-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K33K
Total parametersUnknown14.7B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownmit
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesUnknown
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard)Unknown
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning

12 comparable fields · 10 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

Phi-4 Reasoning Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoning
Input price
Output price
Serving providers0
Canonical IDmicrosoft/Phi-4-reasoning

Internal Comparison Graph

Related Comparisons

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

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Phi-4 Reasoning FAQs

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-4 Reasoning, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning?+

Only Claude Fable 5.1 has a directly sourced input price: $10.00 per million tokens. Only Claude Fable 5.1 has a directly sourced output price: $50.00 per million tokens.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning?+

Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1,000K and Phi-4 Reasoning supports 33K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning?+

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 Phi-4 Reasoning be self-hosted?+

Phi-4 Reasoning is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; Phi-4 Reasoning is open weight.

Can Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-4 Reasoning understand images?+

Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; Phi-4 Reasoning is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Fable 5.1 is 128K and Phi-4 Reasoning is —.

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and Phi-4 Reasoning support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Phi-4 Reasoning: reasoning. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning?+

Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Phi-4 Reasoning has 0, so Claude Fable 5.1 has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or Phi-4 Reasoning?+

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