Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp

Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp (DeepSeek) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 9 September 2026

As of 9 September 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#3 vs #23); DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is 75.8× cheaper per output token ($0.66/1M vs $50.00/1M); and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp ships open weights.

Which should you choose?

Choose Claude Fable 5.1 if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #3 against #23 (87.7 vs 71.2 points).
  • you want the more recently listed model — Claude Fable 5.1 was listed 1 September 2026, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 21 August 2026.

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp if…

  • API cost matters — $0.66/1M output tokens against $50.00/1M, about 75.8× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.22/1M against $10.00/1M.
  • you want to self-host: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp ships open weights while Claude Fable 5.1 is api only.
  • you want provider choice — 6 listed API providers against 4.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
FieldClaude Fable 5.1AnthropicDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
ModelCap Index position#3#23
Index score87.771.2
EvidenceMeasuredEstimated
Input price / 1M tokens$10.00$0.22
Output price / 1M tokens$50.00$0.66
Context window1M tokens1M tokens
Max output tokens128K944K
API providers listed46
Weight accessAPI onlyOpen weights
Input modalitiesText, Image, FileText, Image
First listed1 September 202621 August 2026
PublisherAnthropicDeepSeek

Evidence: 5 public benchmark observations across 5 boards · publisher-corpus-prior over 182 held-out anchors (13%); launch card against 2 resolved peers on 7 rows (87%); exceeds every named peer on 1 of 7 rows; no cross-lab optimism probe available; shrunk 2 toward the measured corpus. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp

Public benchmark boards where Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp has a published result
BoardClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)15171491–1542MaxOnly one result
LMArena AgentLMArena14.5%12.6%–16.4%MaxOnly one result
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize Foundation90.0%MaxOnly one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis53.4intelligence-index:v4.3:reasoning-unspecifiedOnly one result
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis91.4%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback)":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis59.1%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback)":reasoning=trueOnly one result
Terminal-Bench 4.0Terminal-Bench (Laude Institute)57.9%54.1%–61.6%Claude Code · MaxOnly one result

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp: common questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?

Claude Fable 5.1 ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 9 September 2026: #3 against #23. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is cheaper on output tokens: $0.66/1M against $50.00/1M. Input tokens are $10.00/1M for Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.22/1M for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $45.00 for Claude Fable 5.1 versus $0.77 for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp costs 98.3% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?

Both publish a 1M-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp open-weight models?

Claude Fable 5.1: API only. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run Claude Fable 5.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?

ModelCap currently lists 4 API providers for Claude Fable 5.1 and 6 for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Claude Fable 5.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 9 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further