AI Models · Paid vs Paid

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid vs SCSummarize Paid

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Summarize 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
SCSummarizePaidScaledown
$0.04 /M input
Free /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
Choose Summarize for the lower output price (Free/M vs $25/M). Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if you need the larger 1M context window.

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Summarize specs

SpecClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)SummarizeWinner
MakerAnthropicScaledown–
TypeProprietaryProprietary–
Context window1M tokens1M tokens= Tie
Input price$5/M$0.04/MSCSummarize
Output price$25/MFree/MSCSummarize
Vision / multimodalYesYes= Tie
Tool / function callingYesNoClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Self-hostableNo (API only)No (API only)–
LicenseProprietaryProprietary–

Price gap & when to choose each

Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure
SCChoose Summarize 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)Summarize
Open weights (downloadable)✗✗
Self-hostable✗✗
Runs fully offline✗✗
Vision / multimodal✓✓
Tool / function calling✓✗
1M+ context window✓✓

Benchmarks: Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Summarize

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

Claude Fable 5.1 (batch)
Summarize
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
64.2 tok/s
–
Latency
138.66s
–
Intelligence per $
2.7
–

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) and Summarize score

🤝 Neck and neck on these criteria (3.1 vs 3.2 / 5).
CriterionClaude Fable 5.1 (batch)Summarize
Cost-efficiency3.05.0
Context window5.05.0
Openness1.51.5
Self-hosting1.01.0
Multimodality5.03.5

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...

Summarize Paid

Scaledown · Proprietary

Summarize is an abstractive summarization model from ScaleDown. It condenses long text and documents into a fluent, faithful rewrite rather than lifting sentences from the source, and is suited for...

Frequently asked questions

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

Summarize is cheaper on output (Free/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 Summarize — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose Summarize for the lower output price (Free/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 →