12 measured metrics · 11 calculated · 4 studies
Claude Sonnet 5.5vsClaude Fable 5.1
No row separates them: 4 ties, 19 unclear.
The verdict
Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 share 12 measured metrics and 11 list-price calculations from 4 studies. No row separates them: every interval or run range overlaps, too few runs were recorded, no interval was recorded, or more is not better for that metric. The rows are 4 ties and 19 unclear; each row says why. Calculation rows are derived from list prices and recorded counts; they are not bills or runs. Some rows rest on small samples (n = 4 at the smallest).
Headline metrics
How far apart the two sides are on the headline metrics. Length is the ratio of the two values; it is not a winner.
Bar length is the ratio of the two values on a log scale, pointing to the larger one. Larger is not better for time, tokens or cost. A bar has a side’s color only when that side is ahead in the data; gray means the data does not separate them.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | n | Interval or range | Outcome | Basis | Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass rate on five validated tasks | 80% (12/15)Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 100% (15/15)Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | 95% CI: 55%–93% vs 80%–100% | Tie | The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 55% to 93%; Claude Fable 5.1 80% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Total time per call | 2.31 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 1.94 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | range: 2.2 s–7.7 s vs 1.4 s–9.8 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 2.17 s to 7.73 s; Claude Fable 5.1 1.41 s to 9.83 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Time to first useful output | 1.56 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 1.20 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | range: 1 s–6.4 s vs 1 s–7.9 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 0.99 s to 6.39 s; Claude Fable 5.1 0.95 s to 7.90 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Input tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Cache read) | 1,401Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 2,760Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Output tokens per call (Output tokens) | 107Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 64Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| List-price cost per passing answer (calculation)Calculation | $0.0062Claude Code · five short validated tasks | $0.021Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | No interval or range was recorded for either side, so the gap ($0.0062 vs $0.021, 3.3x) is not tested against run-to-run variation. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
Marks: 95% intervals (Wilson for rates); fastest–slowest run ranges (not intervals)n is shown per side on every rowHollow marks: list-price calculations, not runs
6 headline metrics as the ratio of the two values. None of them separates the sides in the data. Widest ratio: List-price cost per passing answer (calculation), 3.3x (Claude Fable 5.1 larger).
Metric by metric
Both values of a row come from the same chart in the same study. Each row has its own axis. The shaded band is where the two intervals or ranges overlap: a side is ahead only when they do not.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1
- 95% interval
- fastest–slowest run (not an interval)
- where the two overlap
- hollow: list-price calculation
These calculations hold each rate fixed and assume independent samples. They are not a power calculation or a paired test. Open the sample-size planner.
Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head
- Pass rate on five validated tasks80% (12/15)n 15100% (15/15)n 15TiePass rate on five validated tasks: Claude Sonnet 5.5 80% (12/15) (n 15, 95% interval 55%–93%); Claude Fable 5.1 100% (15/15) (n 15, 95% interval 80%–100%). Tie.
Calculation: at these rates, about 33 runs per side would separate them.
- Total time per call2.31 sn 151.94 sn 15UnclearTotal time per call: Claude Sonnet 5.5 2.31 s (n 15, run range 2.2 s–7.7 s); Claude Fable 5.1 1.94 s (n 15, run range 1.4 s–9.8 s). Unclear.
- Time to first useful output1.56 sn 151.20 sn 15UnclearTime to first useful output: Claude Sonnet 5.5 1.56 s (n 15, run range 1 s–6.4 s); Claude Fable 5.1 1.20 s (n 15, run range 1 s–7.9 s). Unclear.
- Input tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Cache read)1,401n 152,760n 15UnclearInput tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Cache read): Claude Sonnet 5.5 1,401 (n 15); Claude Fable 5.1 2,760 (n 15). Unclear.
- Input tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Other input)685n 15473n 15UnclearInput tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Other input): Claude Sonnet 5.5 685 (n 15); Claude Fable 5.1 473 (n 15). Unclear.
- Output tokens per call (Output tokens)107n 1564n 15UnclearOutput tokens per call (Output tokens): Claude Sonnet 5.5 107 (n 15); Claude Fable 5.1 64 (n 15). Unclear.
- List-price cost per call (calculation)Calculation$0.0036n 15$0.0099n 15UnclearList-price cost per call (calculation), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.0036 (n 15, run range $0.0034–$0.01); Claude Fable 5.1 $0.0099 (n 15, run range $0.0049–$0.058). Unclear.
- List-price cost per passing answer (calculation)Calculation$0.0062n 15$0.021n 15UnclearList-price cost per passing answer (calculation), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.0062 (n 15); Claude Fable 5.1 $0.021 (n 15). Unclear.
Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks
- Pass rate on eight hard tasks (Strict pass)100% (24/24)n 24100% (24/24)n 24TiePass rate on eight hard tasks (Strict pass): Claude Sonnet 5.5 100% (24/24) (n 24, 95% interval 86%–100%); Claude Fable 5.1 100% (24/24) (n 24, 95% interval 86%–100%). Tie.
- Pass rate on eight hard tasks (Lenient (format misses counted))100% (24/24)n 24100% (24/24)n 24TiePass rate on eight hard tasks (Lenient (format misses counted)): Claude Sonnet 5.5 100% (24/24) (n 24, 95% interval 86%–100%); Claude Fable 5.1 100% (24/24) (n 24, 95% interval 86%–100%). Tie.
- Total time per call on hard tasks (separate batches)7.75 sn 2416.1 sn 24UnclearTotal time per call on hard tasks (separate batches): Claude Sonnet 5.5 7.75 s (n 24, run range 2.3 s–34.8 s); Claude Fable 5.1 16.1 s (n 24, run range 4.5 s–90 s). Unclear.
- Time to first useful output on hard tasks5.95 sn 2411.6 sn 24UnclearTime to first useful output on hard tasks: Claude Sonnet 5.5 5.95 s (n 24, run range 0.9 s–30.6 s); Claude Fable 5.1 11.6 s (n 24, run range 2 s–85.3 s). Unclear.
- Output tokens per call on hard tasks (Output tokens)1,050n 241,366n 24UnclearOutput tokens per call on hard tasks (Output tokens): Claude Sonnet 5.5 1,050 (n 24); Claude Fable 5.1 1,366 (n 24). Unclear.
- List-price cost per strict pass on hard tasks (calculation)Calculation$0.014n 24$0.093n 24UnclearList-price cost per strict pass on hard tasks (calculation), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.014 (n 24); Claude Fable 5.1 $0.093 (n 24). Unclear.
How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort
- Reasoning share of output tokens per call on hard tasks (calculation)Calculation54.5%n 2464.2%n 24UnclearReasoning share of output tokens per call on hard tasks (calculation), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 54.5% (n 24, run range 0%–96%); Claude Fable 5.1 64.2% (n 24, run range 23%–97%). Unclear.
- List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Reasoning (output tokens))Calculation$0.0067n 24$0.054n 24UnclearList-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Reasoning (output tokens)), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.0067 (n 24); Claude Fable 5.1 $0.054 (n 24). Unclear.
- List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Remaining output (visible-answer estimate))Calculation$0.0037n 24$0.019n 24UnclearList-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Remaining output (visible-answer estimate)), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.0037 (n 24); Claude Fable 5.1 $0.019 (n 24). Unclear.
- List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Input (prompt, cache priced))Calculation$0.0040n 24$0.021n 24UnclearList-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Input (prompt, cache priced)), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.0040 (n 24); Claude Fable 5.1 $0.021 (n 24). Unclear.
- Reasoning share on short tasks vs hard tasks (calculation) (Eight hard tasks)Calculation54.5%n 2464.2%n 24UnclearReasoning share on short tasks vs hard tasks (calculation) (Eight hard tasks), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 54.5% (n 24, run range 0%–96%); Claude Fable 5.1 64.2% (n 24, run range 23%–97%). Unclear.
- Reasoning share on short tasks vs hard tasks (calculation) (Five short tasks)Calculation0%n 150%n 15TieReasoning share on short tasks vs hard tasks (calculation) (Five short tasks), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 0% (n 15, run range 0%–73%); Claude Fable 5.1 0% (n 15, run range 0%–74%). Tie.
Where the seconds go: first text, output speed and prompt size for 6 LLMs
- Time to first text: a 250-line answer, six models1.96 sn 44.43 sn 4UnclearTime to first text: a 250-line answer, six models: Claude Sonnet 5.5 1.96 s (n 4, run range 0.9 s–4.1 s); Claude Fable 5.1 4.43 s (n 4, run range 2.3 s–4.6 s). Unclear.
- Output speed after the first text: visible tokens per second (calculation)Calculation232n 4123n 4UnclearOutput speed after the first text: visible tokens per second (calculation), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 232 (n 4, run range 230–233); Claude Fable 5.1 123 (n 4, run range 121–131). Unclear.
- Output speed in characters per second after the first text (calculation)Calculation517n 4273n 4UnclearOutput speed in characters per second after the first text (calculation), calculation: Claude Sonnet 5.5 517 (n 4, run range 513–519); Claude Fable 5.1 273 (n 4, run range 270–293). Unclear.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | n | Interval or range | Outcome | Basis | Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass rate on five validated tasks | 80% (12/15)Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 100% (15/15)Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | 95% CI: 55%–93% vs 80%–100% | Tie | The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 55% to 93%; Claude Fable 5.1 80% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Total time per call | 2.31 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 1.94 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | range: 2.2 s–7.7 s vs 1.4 s–9.8 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 2.17 s to 7.73 s; Claude Fable 5.1 1.41 s to 9.83 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Time to first useful output | 1.56 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 1.20 sClaude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | range: 1 s–6.4 s vs 1 s–7.9 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 0.99 s to 6.39 s; Claude Fable 5.1 0.95 s to 7.90 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Input tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Cache read) | 1,401Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 2,760Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Input tokens per call: what the CLI sends (Other input) | 685Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 473Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Output tokens per call (Output tokens) | 107Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 64Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| List-price cost per call (calculation)Calculation | $0.0036Claude Code · five short validated tasks | $0.0099Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | range: $0.0034–$0.01 vs $0.0049–$0.058 | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 $0.0034 to $0.010; Claude Fable 5.1 $0.0049 to $0.058); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| List-price cost per passing answer (calculation)Calculation | $0.0062Claude Code · five short validated tasks | $0.021Claude Code · five short validated tasks | 15 | none recorded | Unclear | No interval or range was recorded for either side, so the gap ($0.0062 vs $0.021, 3.3x) is not tested against run-to-run variation. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head |
| Pass rate on eight hard tasks (Strict pass) | 100% (24/24)Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 100% (24/24)Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 24 | 95% CI: 86%–100% vs 86%–100% | Tie | The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 86% to 100%; Claude Fable 5.1 86% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks |
| Pass rate on eight hard tasks (Lenient (format misses counted)) | 100% (24/24)Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 100% (24/24)Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 24 | 95% CI: 86%–100% vs 86%–100% | Tie | The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 86% to 100%; Claude Fable 5.1 86% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks |
| Total time per call on hard tasks (separate batches) | 7.75 sClaude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 16.1 sClaude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 24 | range: 2.3 s–34.8 s vs 4.5 s–90 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 2.26 s to 34.8 s; Claude Fable 5.1 4.46 s to 90.0 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks |
| Time to first useful output on hard tasks | 5.95 sClaude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 11.6 sClaude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 24 | range: 0.9 s–30.6 s vs 2 s–85.3 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 0.86 s to 30.6 s; Claude Fable 5.1 2.00 s to 85.3 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks |
| Output tokens per call on hard tasks (Output tokens) | 1,050Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 1,366Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 24 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks |
| List-price cost per strict pass on hard tasks (calculation)Calculation | $0.014Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | $0.093Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks | 24 | none recorded | Unclear | No interval or range was recorded for either side, so the gap ($0.014 vs $0.093, 6.5x) is not tested against run-to-run variation. | Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks |
| Reasoning share of output tokens per call on hard tasks (calculation)Calculation | 54.5%Claude Code | 64.2%Claude Code | 24 | range: 0%–96% vs 23%–97% | Unclear | More or fewer percent is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort |
| List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Reasoning (output tokens))Calculation | $0.0067Claude Code | $0.054Claude Code | 24 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer usd is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort |
| List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Remaining output (visible-answer estimate))Calculation | $0.0037Claude Code | $0.019Claude Code | 24 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer usd is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort |
| List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Input (prompt, cache priced))Calculation | $0.0040Claude Code | $0.021Claude Code | 24 | none recorded | Unclear | More or fewer usd is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort |
| Reasoning share on short tasks vs hard tasks (calculation) (Eight hard tasks)Calculation | 54.5%Claude Code | 64.2%Claude Code | 24 | range: 0%–96% vs 23%–97% | Unclear | More or fewer percent is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort |
| Reasoning share on short tasks vs hard tasks (calculation) (Five short tasks)Calculation | 0%Claude Code | 0%Claude Code | 15 | range: 0%–73% vs 0%–74% | Tie | Same value. More or fewer is not better by itself for this metric. | How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort |
| Time to first text: a 250-line answer, six models | 1.96 sClaude Code | 4.43 sClaude Code | 4 | range: 0.9 s–4.1 s vs 2.3 s–4.6 s | Unclear | The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 0.88 s to 4.09 s; Claude Fable 5.1 2.27 s to 4.64 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval. | Where the seconds go: first text, output speed and prompt size for 6 LLMs |
| Output speed after the first text: visible tokens per second (calculation)Calculation | 232Claude Code | 123Claude Code | 4 | range: 230–233 vs 121–131 | Unclear | More or fewer tokens is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Where the seconds go: first text, output speed and prompt size for 6 LLMs |
| Output speed in characters per second after the first text (calculation)Calculation | 517Claude Code | 273Claude Code | 4 | range: 513–519 vs 270–293 | Unclear | More or fewer count is not better or worse by itself; this row describes behaviour, not a winner. | Where the seconds go: first text, output speed and prompt size for 6 LLMs |
Marks: 95% intervals (Wilson for rates); fastest–slowest run ranges (not intervals)n is shown per side on every rowHollow marks: list-price calculations, not runs
23 rows from 4 studies. No row separates them: 4 ties, 19 unclear.
When to pick which
Only from the rows above. A tie is not a reason to pick either side.
When to pick Claude Sonnet 5.5
- List-price cost per call (calculation): $0.0036 vs $0.0099. A list-price calculation, not a measured difference. Calculation
- List-price cost per passing answer (calculation): $0.0062 vs $0.021. A list-price calculation, not a measured difference. Calculation
- List-price cost per strict pass on hard tasks (calculation): $0.014 vs $0.093. A list-price calculation, not a measured difference. Calculation
- List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Reasoning (output tokens)): $0.0067 vs $0.054. A list-price calculation, not a measured difference. Calculation
- List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Remaining output (visible-answer estimate)): $0.0037 vs $0.019. A list-price calculation, not a measured difference. Calculation
- List-price cost per call: reasoning, remaining output and input (calculation) (Input (prompt, cache priced)): $0.0040 vs $0.021. A list-price calculation, not a measured difference. Calculation
When to pick Claude Fable 5.1
No row in this data puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead of Claude Sonnet 5.5. Pick on other grounds (price, access, the tasks you run), or measure your own workload.
Side by side
The study charts, showing only these two. Open a study for every configuration.
| Item | Pass rate | 95% interval | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 100% | 80%–100% | 15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 80% | 55%–93% | 15 |
2 rows. Highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 100% (95% interval 80%–100%, n 15). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 80% (95% interval 55%–93%, n 15). All intervals overlap.
NotesWhiskers: 95% Wilson intervaln = 15 per row
Every call counts; failures and timeouts are non-passes
Whiskers are 95% Wilson intervals. The tasks are short and most configurations pass nearly all of them, so pass rate does not separate the models here.
Source: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts
Every lane’s run range overlaps another lane’s, so the chart shows no finish order.
| Item | Total time per call | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 1.9 s | 1.4 s–9.8 s | 15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 2.3 s | 2.2 s–7.7 s | 15 |
2 rows. Slowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 2.3 s (range 2.2 s–7.7 s, n 15). Fastest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 1.9 s (range 1.4 s–9.8 s, n 15). All run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: fastest–slowest run (not an interval)n = 15 per row
Median per configuration; whiskers = fastest and slowest call
One host, one network, one day. Whiskers are a range, not a confidence interval.
Source: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts
Every lane’s run range overlaps another lane’s, so the chart shows no finish order.
| Item | Time to first useful output | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 1.2 s | 1 s–7.9 s | 15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 1.6 s | 1 s–6.4 s | 15 |
2 rows. Slowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 1.6 s (range 1 s–6.4 s, n 15). Fastest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 1.2 s (range 1 s–7.9 s, n 15). All run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: fastest–slowest run (not an interval)n = 15 per row
Median per configuration; whiskers = fastest and slowest call
One host, one network, one day. Whiskers are a range, not a confidence interval.
Source: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts
- Cache read
- Other input
Totals are the sum of the parts shown. Shares are calculated from the same values.
| Item | Cache read | Other input | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 2,760 | 473 | 15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 1,401 | 685 | 15 |
2 rows, 2 series: Cache read, Other input. Cache read: highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 2,760 (n 15). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 1,401 (n 15). Other input: highest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 685 (n 15). Lowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 473 (n 15).
Notesn = 15 per row
Mean per call, split into prompt-cache reads and other input
The prompts are a few hundred tokens; most input is the CLI’s own system prompt and tool context. Input counts include cache reads, as the vendors report them.
Source: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts
- Output tokens
- of which reasoning tokens (inner bar)
| Item | Output tokens | Reasoning tokens | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 64 | 0 | 15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 107 | 0 | 15 |
2 rows, 2 series: Output tokens, Reasoning tokens. Output tokens: highest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 107 (n 15). Lowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 64 (n 15). Reasoning tokens: all at 0.
Notesn = 15 per row
Median per configuration; reasoning tokens where the CLI reports them
Vendors count reasoning differently; compare within a vendor first. A median of 0 can mean the CLI did not report reasoning for most calls.
Source: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts
| Item | Cost per call | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | $0.0099 | $0.0049–$0.058 | 15 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | $0.0036 | $0.0034–$0.01 | 15 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows. Highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code $0.0099 (range $0.0049–$0.058, n 15). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code $0.0036 (range $0.0034–$0.01, n 15). All run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: lowest–highest run (not an interval)n = 15 per row
Reported tokens × list price; the calls ran on subscriptions
Calculation, not a bill: the calls ran on flat subscriptions. Whiskers = cheapest and most expensive call.
Sources: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts, Repricing calculation, Anthropic list prices (Claude models), OpenAI list prices
| Item | Cost per pass | n |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | $0.0062 | 15 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | $0.021 | 15 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows. Highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code $0.021 (n 15). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code $0.0062 (n 15).
Notesn = 15 per row
All calls in a configuration, failures included, divided by its passes
Calculation, not a bill: reported tokens × list price; the calls ran on flat subscriptions. A failed call still costs, so a lower pass rate raises the cost per pass. Highlighted bars are on the speed/cost/quality frontier.
Sources: Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts, Repricing calculation, Anthropic list prices (Claude models), OpenAI list prices
- Strict pass
- Lenient (format misses counted)
| Item | Strict pass | Lenient (format misses counted) | 95% interval | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 100% | 100% | Strict pass: 86%–100%; Lenient (format misses counted): 86%–100% | 24 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 100% | 100% | Strict pass: 86%–100%; Lenient (format misses counted): 86%–100% | 24 |
2 rows, 2 series: Strict pass, Lenient (format misses counted). Strict pass: all at 100%. Lenient (format misses counted): all at 100%.
NotesWhiskers: 95% Wilson intervaln = 24 per row
Strict: the reply passes as given. Lenient: a correct answer in the wrong format also counts
Whiskers are 95% Wilson intervals. The strict pass is the result; the lenient reading is shown so a reader can see how much is format and how much is a wrong answer. A format miss never counts as a pass.
Source: Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators
Every lane’s run range overlaps another lane’s, so the chart shows no finish order.
| Item | Total time per call on hard tasks (separate batches) | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 7.8 s | 2.3 s–34.8 s | 24 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 16.1 s | 4.5 s–90 s | 24 |
2 rows. Slowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 16.1 s (range 4.5 s–90 s, n 24). Fastest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 7.8 s (range 2.3 s–34.8 s, n 24). All run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: fastest–slowest run (not an interval)n = 24 per row
Median per configuration; whiskers = fastest and slowest call
One host and network; the counted Claude and Codex batches ran hours apart. Host load was not controlled. Whiskers are a range, not a confidence interval. Highlighted: configurations that passed every call.
Source: Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators
Every lane’s run range overlaps another lane’s, so the chart shows no finish order.
| Item | Time to first useful output on hard tasks | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 6 s | 0.9 s–30.6 s | 24 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 11.6 s | 2 s–85.3 s | 24 |
2 rows. Slowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 11.6 s (range 2 s–85.3 s, n 24). Fastest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 6 s (range 0.9 s–30.6 s, n 24). All run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: fastest–slowest run (not an interval)n = 24 per row
Median per configuration; whiskers = fastest and slowest call
One host and network; the counted Claude and Codex batches ran hours apart. Host load was not controlled. Whiskers are a range, not a confidence interval. Highlighted: configurations that passed every call.
Source: Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators
- Output tokens
- of which reasoning tokens (inner bar)
| Item | Output tokens | Reasoning tokens | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 1,050 | 585 | 24 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 1,366 | 889 | 24 |
2 rows, 2 series: Output tokens, Reasoning tokens. Output tokens: highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 1,366 (n 24). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 1,050 (n 24). Reasoning tokens: highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 889 (n 24). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 585 (n 24).
Notesn = 24 per row
Median per configuration; reasoning tokens as the CLI reports them
Reasoning tokens are part of the output tokens where the CLI reports them. Their content is never captured. More tokens is not better or worse by itself.
Source: Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators
| Item | Cost per strict pass | n |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | $0.014 | 24 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | $0.093 | 24 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows. Highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code $0.093 (n 24). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code $0.014 (n 24).
Notesn = 24 per row
All calls in a configuration, failures and format misses included, divided by its strict passes
Calculation, not a bill: reported tokens × list price; the calls ran on a flat subscription. A failed call still costs, so a lower pass rate raises the cost per pass. Highlighted bars are on the quality-vs-cost frontier.
Sources: Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators, Repricing calculation, Anthropic list prices (Claude models), OpenAI list prices
- Reasoning (output tokens)
- Remaining output (visible-answer estimate)
- Input (prompt, cache priced)
Totals are the sum of the parts shown. Shares are calculated from the same values.
| Item | Reasoning (output tokens) | Remaining output (visible-answer estimate) | Input (prompt, cache priced) | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | $0.054 | $0.019 | $0.021 | 24 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | $0.0067 | $0.0037 | $0.004 | 24 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows, 3 series: Reasoning (output tokens), Remaining output (visible-answer estimate), Input (prompt, cache priced). Reasoning (output tokens): highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code $0.054 (n 24). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code $0.0067 (n 24). Remaining output (visible-answer estimate): highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code $0.019 (n 24). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code $0.0037 (n 24).
Notesn = 24 per row
Mean per call on the hard tasks; the three parts add up to the call
Calculation, not a bill: reported tokens × list price (per million output tokens: Haiku 4.5 $5, Sonnet 5.5 $10, Opus 5.5 $20, Fable 5.1 $50 and GPT-6.1 Sol $10); the calls ran on flat subscriptions. Reasoning and remaining output both use the output price. The remainder estimates visible-answer tokens; its exact meaning depends on the CLI counters. Input is the whole prompt, with cache reads and writes priced as in the hard head-to-head. It includes CLI context; these receipts do not separate task tokens from CLI context. It changes with cache counters. Batch timing and cache behavior were not controlled. Means, not medians, so the parts add up.
Sources: Reasoning token bill (calculation), Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators, Effort ladder: the hard task set at each effort level, Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts, Anthropic list prices (Claude models), OpenAI list prices
- Eight hard tasks
- Five short tasks (square)
Gap labels, Five short tasks vs Eight hard tasks: Five short tasks is x percentage points higher (+) or lower (−) than Eight hard tasks, calculated from the two values shown; lines are the lowest–highest run (not an interval).
| Item | Eight hard tasks | Five short tasks | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 55% | 0% | Eight hard tasks: 0%–96%; Five short tasks: 0%–73% | 24 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 64% | 0% | Eight hard tasks: 23%–97%; Five short tasks: 0%–74% | 24 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows, 2 series: Eight hard tasks, Five short tasks. Eight hard tasks: highest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 64% (range 23%–97%, n 24). Lowest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 55% (range 0%–96%, n 24). All run ranges overlap. Five short tasks: all at 0%.
NotesLines: lowest–highest run (not an interval)n 15–24 per row
Median call per configuration; five short tasks and eight hard tasks
Calculation from reported tokens, not a run: the median of per-call reasoning ÷ output. A median of 0% means at least half of the calls reported 0 reasoning tokens in the receipt. On a route that reports reasoning, we retain a numeric 0 as the recorded counter. It does not prove the model did no internal reasoning. The table says how many calls reported 0. The short tasks are five small validated tasks (a bug fix, a JSON extraction, an arithmetic problem, a refactor and a ticket classification). Per-call ranges are in the tables.
Sources: Reasoning token bill (calculation), Provider head-to-head, hard set: eight hard tasks with strict validators, Effort ladder: the hard task set at each effort level, Provider head-to-head: Claude Code models vs Codex efforts, Anthropic list prices (Claude models), OpenAI list prices
Every lane’s run range overlaps another lane’s, so the chart shows no finish order.
| Item | Time to first text | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 2 s | 0.9 s–4.1 s | 4 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 4.4 s | 2.3 s–4.6 s | 4 |
2 rows. Slowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 4.4 s (range 2.3 s–4.6 s, n 4). Fastest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 2 s (range 0.9 s–4.1 s, n 4). All run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: fastest–slowest run (not an interval)n = 4 per row
Median of 4 calls per model; whiskers = fastest and slowest call
Dot = median; whiskers = fastest and slowest call (a range, not a confidence interval). The clock starts when the CLI starts, so first text includes CLI start-up (see chart cli-startup-tax) and any reasoning before the first word. One Mac, one network, two sessions on one night.
Source: LLM speed anatomy
| Item | Visible tokens per second | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 232 | 230–233 | 4 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 123 | 121–131 | 4 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows. Highest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 232 (range 230–233, n 4). Lowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 123 (range 121–131, n 4). Not all run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: lowest–highest run (not an interval)n = 4 per row
Median of 4 calls per model; whiskers = slowest and fastest call
Calculation, not a measurement: visible output tokens (the CLI’s output token count minus its reported reasoning tokens) divided by the time from the first text to the end of the call. The denominator includes the CLI’s exit overhead; its size is not measured here. Whiskers are a range of calls, not a confidence interval. The calculation removes reported reasoning tokens. These receipts do not locate all reasoning in time.
Source: LLM speed anatomy
| Item | Characters per second | Range (lowest–highest run) | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code | 517 | 513–519 | 4 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code | 273 | 270–293 | 4 |
List-price calculation, not a run. 2 rows. Highest Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Claude Code 517 (range 513–519, n 4). Lowest Claude Fable 5.1 · Claude Code 273 (range 270–293, n 4). Not all run ranges overlap.
NotesLines: lowest–highest run (not an interval)n = 4 per row
Only replies that matched all 250 lines; median per model, whiskers = slowest and fastest call
Calculation, not a measurement: the characters of a correct reply (the same text for every model) divided by the time from the first text to the end of the call. Each vendor counts the same text as a different number of tokens, so characters compare across models where tokens do not. The CLI’s exit time is inside that time. Whiskers are a range of calls, not a confidence interval.
Source: LLM speed anatomy
How a row is called
- AheadThe 95% intervals do not overlap, or the run ranges or p50–p95 bands do not overlap with at least 5 runs per side.
- TieThe values match, or both sit at the same ceiling.
- UnclearThe intervals or ranges overlap, too few runs were recorded, no interval was recorded, or more is not better (token counts are never a win).
- CalculationDerived from list prices and recorded counts. Not a bill and not a run.
The dataset compiler makes every call; this page only draws it. No composite score, no rank.
Questions
- Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Claude Fable 5.1?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 share 12 measured metrics and 11 list-price calculations from 4 studies. No row separates them: every interval or run range overlaps, too few runs were recorded, no interval was recorded, or more is not better for that metric. The rows are 4 ties and 19 unclear; each row says why. Calculation rows are derived from list prices and recorded counts; they are not bills or runs. Some rows rest on small samples (n = 4 at the smallest).
- How were Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 measured?
- They share 12 measured metrics and 11 list-price calculations from 4 public studies: Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head; Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks; How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort; Where the seconds go: first text, output speed and prompt size for 6 LLMs. Every row names its configuration, its sample size and its interval or range.
- How do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 compare on pass rate on five validated tasks?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5: 80% (12/15) (Claude Code · five short validated tasks; n = 15; 95% interval 55% to 93%). Claude Fable 5.1: 100% (15/15) (Claude Code · five short validated tasks; n = 15; 95% interval 80% to 100%). The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 55% to 93%; Claude Fable 5.1 80% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them.
- How do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 compare on total time per call?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2.31 s (Claude Code · five short validated tasks; n = 15; run range 2.2 s to 7.7 s). Claude Fable 5.1: 1.94 s (Claude Code · five short validated tasks; n = 15; run range 1.4 s to 9.8 s). The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 2.17 s to 7.73 s; Claude Fable 5.1 1.41 s to 9.83 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval.
- How do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 compare on time to first useful output?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1.56 s (Claude Code · five short validated tasks; n = 15; run range 1 s to 6.4 s). Claude Fable 5.1: 1.20 s (Claude Code · five short validated tasks; n = 15; run range 1 s to 7.9 s). The run ranges (fastest to slowest) overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 0.99 s to 6.39 s; Claude Fable 5.1 0.95 s to 7.90 s); the medians alone do not show a reliable difference. A range is not a confidence interval.
- How do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 compare on pass rate on eight hard tasks (Strict pass)?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5: 100% (24/24) (Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks; n = 24; 95% interval 86% to 100%). Claude Fable 5.1: 100% (24/24) (Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks; n = 24; 95% interval 86% to 100%). The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 86% to 100%; Claude Fable 5.1 86% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them.
- How do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1 compare on pass rate on eight hard tasks (Lenient (format misses counted))?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5: 100% (24/24) (Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks; n = 24; 95% interval 86% to 100%). Claude Fable 5.1: 100% (24/24) (Claude Code · eight hard validated tasks; n = 24; 95% interval 86% to 100%). The 95% intervals overlap (Claude Sonnet 5.5 86% to 100%; Claude Fable 5.1 86% to 100%), so this sample cannot separate them.
The studies behind this page
Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs Codex: a timed head-to-head
130 timed calls on five validated tasks: Claude Haiku, Sonnet, Opus and Fable against Codex GPT-6.1 Sol. Pass rate, speed, tokens, cost per pass.
Haiku vs Sonnet vs Opus vs Fable vs GPT-6.1 Sol on 8 hard tasks
152 calls on 8 hard tasks with strict validators. Pass rate with 95% intervals, format misses, speed, tokens and cost per pass.
How much of an AI bill is thinking? Reasoning tokens by model and effort
Reasoning tokens in 378 recorded calls by model and effort: share of output, list-price cost per call and per pass, and time. Calculations.
Where the seconds go: first text, output speed and prompt size for 6 LLMs
60 calls on 6 models: time to first text, tokens per second, and what a 1k, 16k or 64k prompt adds. Claude Code and Codex CLI.