Claude Fable 5.1 Paid vs INLing 3.1 Flash Paid
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.
Claude Fable 5.1 — full profile › · Ling 3.1 Flash — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$50 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
$0.22 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash specs
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | InclusionAI | – |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 262K tokens | |
| Input price | $10/M | $0.08/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Output price | $50/M | $0.22/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | No | |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | No (API only) | No (API only) | – |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
Price gap & when to choose each
Ling 3.1 Flash is ~227× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1 on output tokens ($0.22 vs $50 per M tokens).
- 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
- 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
| Capability | Claude Fable 5.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✗ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✗ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✗ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✗ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✗ |
Benchmarks: Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Claude Fable 5.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash score
| Criterion | Claude Fable 5.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 3.5 |
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 Paid
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...
Ling 3.1 Flash Paid
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash — which is cheaper?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper on output ($0.22/M vs $50/M).
Which has the larger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 offers the larger context window (1M tokens).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Ling 3.1 Flash for the lower output price ($0.22/M vs $50/M). Choose Claude Fable 5.1 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 →