Compare / Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 64 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 64 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63). See also Anthropic vs MiniMax, every model from both labs.
Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash? The short answer
Pick Claude Fable 5.1 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 66 against 47). Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 76 times less per token. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is also faster.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Fable 5.1 66, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 47 (out of 100; how the score works).
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $20.00 per million tokens, 76 times less.
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 53.4 against 42.4.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes faster: 159 tokens a second against 72.
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 1 Sep 2026 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Fable 5.1 does better for decks from an analysis and marketing planning; MiniMax M3.1 Flash for product listings.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Fable 5.1 does better for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $10.00 in · $50.00 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $20.00 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $20.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cached input, per million | $0.25 cached input | $0.015 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 53.4 | 42.4 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 66 | 47 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 72 | 159 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 1 Sep 2026 | 19 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | China |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.0991 | $0 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 17 · 9 of 24 measured | 26.8% | 50.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 16 · 6 of 24 measured | 5.4% | 37.5% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 23 · 1 of 24 measured | $0.81 | $0 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 14 of 24 measured | 1,378 | 1,090 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 9 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 12 of 24 measured | 51.5 | 40.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 12 of 24 measured | 67.7 | 60.8 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 10 of 24 measured | 52.3 | 38.9 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 3 · 21 of 249 measured | 53.4max reasoning | 42.4 |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 2 · 14 of 248 measured | 59.1%max reasoning | 48.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 22 of 118 measured | 55.1%xhigh reasoning | 25.8% |
Show all 64 results (52 more)
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 16 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 10 · 17 of 24 measured | 97.6% | 95.8% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 12 · 17 of 24 measured | 97.2% | 96.0% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 14 · 16 of 24 measured | 95.9% | 95.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 3 · 19 of 24 measured | 94.7% | 92.0% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 5 · 22 of 24 measured | 0.7% | 3.8% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 2 · 16 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 7.1% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 12 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 4.2% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 17 · 11 of 24 measured | 46.4% | 63.1% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 7 of 24 measured | 13.7% | 57.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 17 · 19 of 24 measured | 21.7 | 32.0 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 20 · 6 of 24 measured | 1.23 | 0.39 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 21 · 5 of 24 measured | 48.8% | 7.7% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 21 · 6 of 24 measured | 3.86 | 0.60 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 21 · 5 of 24 measured | 83.9% | 16.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 1 · 20 of 24 measured | 11.9% | 22.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 20 of 24 measured | 14.9% | 21.4% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 12 · 20 of 24 measured | 2.4% | 4.2% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 21 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 4.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 14 · 23 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 12 · 21 of 24 measured | 66.6% | 46.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 15 of 24 measured | 83.0% | 48.6% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 23 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 100.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 21 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 83.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 16 · 20 of 24 measured | 158 | 330 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 21 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 24 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 17 of 24 measured | 33.3 | 17.3 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 1 · 5 of 24 measured | $965,271 | $693,379 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 24 · 1 of 24 measured | $2.49 | $0 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 21 of 24 measured | 54.6 | 54.2 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 7 · 9 of 24 measured | $0.64 | $0.52 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 3 · 45 of 239 measured | 85.3%max reasoning | 79.7% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 58 · 21 of 78 measured | 72.5max reasoning | 159 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 2 · 36 of 119 measured | 63.1%max reasoning | 53.4% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 24 · 51 of 78 measured | 0.92low reasoning | 13.3 |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs MiniMaxEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse WonderFastest with similar intelligence
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Pick Claude Fable 5.1 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 66 against 47). Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash if cost matters more: it costs 76 times less per token. MiniMax M3.1 Flash is also faster.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.26 against $20.00 per million tokens, 76 times less.
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash writes about 159 tokens a second on its usual API, against 72 for Claude Fable 5.1 (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash ranks 7 of 24 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 17 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 6 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 14 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 6 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 12 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 16 of 168 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 32 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Run Claude Fable 5.1 and MiniMax M3.1 Flash on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.