Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ternary Bonsai 27B
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic |  Ternary Bonsai 27BPrismML |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #1 of 4699.0 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #43 of 44$0.824 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #22 of 3851.7 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | Not reported |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $50.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | Not reported |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 262K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 18, 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Fable 5.1 | Ternary Bonsai 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | PrismML |
| Family | Claude 5 1 | Bonsai 27b |
| Model | Claude Fable 5.1 | Ternary Bonsai 27B |
| Version | Claude Fable 5.1 | Ternary Bonsai 27B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-07-04 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 262K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 27B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools, vision |
| Base model | Unknown | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Effective bit width | Unknown | 1.58 bits per weight |
| Language model size | Unknown | 6.66 GiB |
| Weight format | Unknown | Ternary Q2_0 |
Claude Fable 5.1 Capabilities
Ternary Bonsai 27B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Fable 5Anthropic | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
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-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
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 |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ternary Bonsai 27B FAQs
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 27B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and Ternary Bonsai 27B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 27B?+
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 Ternary Bonsai 27B?+
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1,000K and Ternary Bonsai 27B supports 262K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 27B?+
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 Ternary Bonsai 27B be self-hosted?+
Ternary Bonsai 27B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; Ternary Bonsai 27B is open weight.
Can Claude Fable 5.1 and Ternary Bonsai 27B understand images?+
Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; Ternary Bonsai 27B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 27B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Fable 5.1 is 128K and Ternary Bonsai 27B is —.
Do Claude Fable 5.1 and Ternary Bonsai 27B support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Ternary Bonsai 27B: 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 Ternary Bonsai 27B?+
Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Ternary Bonsai 27B has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or Ternary Bonsai 27B?+
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.