Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic · US | Anthropic · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Both are Anthropic models. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for Claude Fable 5.1 when a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.
Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 are both Anthropic models, so the real question is not which lab to trust but which tier fits your workload and budget. Claude Fable 5.1 is anthropic's September 1, 2026 update to its Fable line for coding and knowledge work, keeping the 1M-token context of Fable 5 while cutting cache-read costs and roughly doubling agentic-research benchmark scores. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%). Since both come from the same lab, the comparison below focuses on the tier-and-cost trade-offs that actually separate them.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Price: Claude Sonnet 5.5 is about 5× cheaper on input ($2/$10 per 1M tokens vs $10/$50 per 1M tokens) — a large enough gap that at scale it can be the single biggest line item in the decision.
- ▸Context window: both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
- ▸Recency: Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the newer model by about 27 days (released September 28, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic (US) | Anthropic (US) |
| Released | September 1, 2026 | September 28, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) | 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $10/$50 per 1M tokens | $2/$10 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | No — API only | No — API only |
| Modalities | text, image | text, image, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | Not published |
Who wins what
Terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%)
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 lists terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%) among its strengths; Claude Sonnet 5.5 does not.
CursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%)
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 lists cursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%) among its strengths; Claude Sonnet 5.5 does not.
Cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 lists cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models among its strengths; Claude Sonnet 5.5 does not.
Terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from Claude Sonnet 5's 10.3%
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Fable 5.1 is comparatively weak here — anthropic has not published an official SWE-bench Verified score for this model
Same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026
Claude Sonnet 5.5
At $2/$10 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Fable 5.1 ($10/$50 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Fable 5.1 is comparatively weak here — restricted Mythos 5.1 variant outscores it on some benchmarks due to lighter safeguards (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 60.9% vs 55.8%)
Lowest cost at scale
Claude Sonnet 5.5
At $2/$10 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Claude Sonnet 5.5
At $2/$10 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Fable 5.1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Anyone whose priority is terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%)
→ Claude Fable 5.1
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3%
→ Claude Sonnet 5.5
That is its strongest area.
Claude Fable 5.1: where it fits
Anthropic's September 1, 2026 update to its Fable line for coding and knowledge work, keeping the 1M-token context of Fable 5 while cutting cache-read costs and roughly doubling agentic-research benchmark scores. Released September 1, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for terminal-Bench-Science agentic research (52.6%, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%), cursorBench 3.2 agentic coding (73.4%), cache-read pricing cut to a quarter of other Claude models, and long, multistep, document-heavy professional work with 1M-token context.
Its trade-offs are real: anthropic has not published an official SWE-bench Verified score for this model, restricted Mythos 5.1 variant outscores it on some benchmarks due to lighter safeguards (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 60.9% vs 55.8%), and closed weights, no self-hosting option. At $10 in / $50 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Claude Sonnet 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%). Released September 28, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from Claude Sonnet 5's 10.3%, same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026, scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost, and anthropic highlights stronger document/slide generation, spreadsheet work, and visual chart recognition (Chartography: 61.6%).
Its trade-offs: anthropic is explicit that Opus 5.5 'remains clearly stronger' on complex, open-ended work requiring sustained judgment, 1M-token context isn't uniformly available across every platform/plan, consistent with the rest of the 5.5 family, and mid-tier update released a week after Opus 5.5 (Sept 22) — Haiku 5.5 followed Oct 7 to complete the family. At $2 in / $10 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
Because Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 come from the same lab (Anthropic), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the more capable, more recent option; the other earns its place only when its price or latency profile fits a specific job better. Most teams should default to Claude Sonnet 5.5 and drop down only with a concrete reason.
Want both Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Sonnet 5.5 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Fable 5.1 leans toward terminal-bench-science agentic research (52.6%, more than double fable 5's 24.7%) while Claude Sonnet 5.5 leans toward terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3%, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper — $10/$50 per 1M tokens vs $2/$10 per 1M tokens, roughly 5× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Should I upgrade from Claude Fable 5.1 to Claude Sonnet 5.5?
Since both are Anthropic models, the newer one (Claude Sonnet 5.5) is usually the better default unless you need a specific cost or latency profile from the other.
Which is newer, Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 — released September 28, 2026, about 27 days after Claude Fable 5.1.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.