AI Models · Paid vs Paid

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid vs UNPareto Paid

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Pareto compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.

Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai

Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)PaidAnthropic
$5 /M input
$25 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
UNParetoPaidUnbiased
$2.5 /M input
$7.5 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window262K tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
Choose Pareto for the lower output price ($7.5/M vs $25/M). Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if you need the larger 1M context window.

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Pareto specs

SpecClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)ParetoWinner
MakerAnthropicUnbiased–
TypeProprietaryProprietary–
Context window1M tokens262K tokensClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Input price$5/M$2.5/MUNPareto
Output price$25/M$7.5/MUNPareto
Vision / multimodalYesYes= Tie
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableNo (API only)No (API only)–
LicenseProprietaryProprietary–

Price gap & when to choose each

3.3×cheaper per output token

Pareto is ~3.3× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) on output tokens ($7.5 vs $25 per M tokens).

Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You need the longer 1M context window
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure
UNChoose Pareto if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You want the lower output price
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure

Feature comparison

CapabilityClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)Pareto
Open weights (downloadable)✗✗
Self-hostable✗✗
Runs fully offline✗✗
Vision / multimodal✓✓
Tool / function calling✓✓
1M+ context window✓✗

Benchmarks: Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Pareto

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Pareto
Intelligence index
53.4
–
Coding index
81.6
–
GPQA
93.7%
–
Humanity's Last Exam
59.1%
–
Long Context Reasoning
85.3%
–
SciCode
63.1%
–
τ-Bench Banking
47.2%
–
Terminal-Bench
91.4%
–
Speed
66.7 tok/s
–
Latency
152.47s
–
Intelligence per $
2.7
–

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) and Pareto score

🤝 Neck and neck on these criteria (3.1 vs 3.1 / 5).
CriterionClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)Pareto
Cost-efficiency3.04.0
Context window5.04.0
Openness1.51.5
Self-hosting1.01.0
Multimodality5.05.0

Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.

What each model is

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid

Anthropic · Proprietary

Claude Fable 5.1 improves on Claude Fable 5 across the board, with the biggest gains in agentic coding, long-running agentic workflows, and knowledge work: long code refactors, front-end and visual...

Pareto Paid

Unbiased · Proprietary

Pareto is a multimodal composite model built for research, coding, and agentic workflows, while delivering frontier-level performance across a broad range of general-purpose tasks.

Frequently asked questions

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Pareto — which is cheaper?

Pareto is cheaper on output ($7.5/M vs $25/M).

Which has the larger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) offers the larger context window (1M tokens).

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Pareto — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose Pareto for the lower output price ($7.5/M vs $25/M). Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if you need the larger 1M context window.

People also compare

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →