Claude Opus 5.5 vs Fable 5.1: is Fable still worth the premium?
Fable 5.1 was Anthropic’s top model until Opus 5.5 arrived on 22 September 2026 with a claim that is unusual for a more affordable model: roughly Fable-level results on most work. The launch table backs it up on every benchmark the two share, so the real question is narrower — which tasks, if any, still justify paying about two and a half times more.
Benchmarks from Anthropic’s Opus 5.5 launch
The widest gaps are in agentic coding and automation (Terminal-Bench 4.0 +10.6 points, AutomationBench +8.6). On chart reading and hard exams the two are within about two points, which is where Fable 5.1’s deeper default reasoning keeps it competitive.
| Benchmark | Opus 5.5 | Fable 5.1 | Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | 66.4% | 55.8% | 52.3% |
| FrontierCode 1.1 | 54.4% | 50.3% | 48.0% |
| CursorBench 4.0 | 57.8% | 51.8% | 46.6% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 1846 | 1735 | 1708 |
| AutomationBench | 40.0% | 31.4% | 26.9% |
| Chartography | 89.0% | 88.4% | 83.4% |
| Humanity’s Last Exam | 67.7% | 65.6% | 63.6% |
| Terminal-Bench-Science | 58.7% | 52.6% | 29.0% |
Differences that matter in practice
Price: Fable 5.1 lists at $10 / $50 per million tokens, Opus 5.5 at $4 / $20. On apimodels.app they are $5 / $25 and $2.40 / $12, so a job that costs $1 on Opus 5.5 costs about $2.08 on Fable 5.1 before counting that Fable also tends to write more reasoning.
Default effort: Opus 5.5 defaults to medium effort, Fable 5.1 to high. Part of Fable’s edge on the hardest problems is simply that it thinks longer by default; raising Opus 5.5 to high or xhigh closes much of that gap for less money. Opus 5.5 cannot turn thinking off.
Thinking blocks across models: Fable 5.1 can read Opus 5.5 thinking blocks, but not the other way round. If you escalate a conversation from Opus 5.5 to Fable 5.1 it works; going back down means dropping Fable’s thinking blocks.
Início rápido
cURL
curl https://api.apimodels.app/v1/messages \
-H "x-api-key: $APIMODELS_API_KEY" \
-H "anthropic-version: 2023-06-01" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-opus-5-5",
"max_tokens": 16000,
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Review this function for race conditions: ..."}]
}'Python
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(base_url="https://api.apimodels.app/v1", api_key="YOUR_APIMODELS_KEY")
# Same prompt, two models, one key: compare them on your own task before you commit.
for model in ["claude-opus-5-5", "claude-fable-5-1"]:
r = client.chat.completions.create(
model=model,
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Refactor this module and explain the risky parts: ..."}],
)
print(model, r.usage.prompt_tokens, r.usage.completion_tokens)
print(r.choices[0].message.content[:400])Perguntas frequentes
Is Opus 5.5 better than Fable 5.1?
On every benchmark in Anthropic’s Opus 5.5 launch table, yes, by margins from 0.6 points (Chartography) to 10.6 points (Terminal-Bench 4.0). Anthropic’s own wording is that Opus 5.5 performs at the level of Fable 5.1 on most tasks.
When should I still use Fable 5.1?
When you have measured it winning on your own hardest reasoning tasks and the extra cost is small next to the cost of a wrong answer. Try Opus 5.5 at high or xhigh effort first; much of Fable’s edge comes from its higher default effort.
How much do they cost on apimodels.app?
Opus 5.5 is $2.40 / $12 per million tokens (Anthropic list $4 / $20); Fable 5.1 is $5 / $25 (list $10 / $50). Both are billed per token on the same key, and failed calls are free.
Do both have a 1M-token context?
Yes. Both support a 1M-token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response, with a June 2026 knowledge cutoff.
Relacionado
- Claude Opus 5.5 model page
- Claude Fable 5.1 model page
- Claude API pricing, every model
- Opus 5.5 vs Sonnet 5.5: benchmarks and which to use
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 pricing and cost per task
- Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 and GPT-6.1
- Claude Code with Opus 5.5: setup and cost
- Making videos with Opus 5.5 (tested)
- Is Claude Opus 5.5 free?
