Home / Compare / Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

For a typical chat reply (2,000 tokens in, 400 out), Claude Fable 5.1 costs 357× as much as Qwen3.7 Flash: $40.00 against $0.112 per 1,000 requests at list price on 2026-09-28.

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7 Flash
Input, per 1M tokens$10.00$0.03
Output, per 1M tokens$50.00$0.13
Context window1M1M
Classification or routing (600 tokens in, 10 out), per 1,000$6.50$0.0193
Chat reply (2,000 in, 400 out), per 1,000$40.00$0.112
Retrieval-augmented answer (8,000 in, 500 out), per 1,000$105$0.305
Confidence signalnoyes
Tool callingyesyes
BANKING77, correct of 400not measured286

Which one should carry your traffic?

If Qwen3.7 Flash answers your requests as well as Claude Fable 5.1, moving that traffic saves 100% on chat-shaped requests. Averages cannot tell you whether it does for your requests. Qwen3.7 Flash exposes a confidence signal, so Gimbix can let it answer first and hand unsure cases to Claude Fable 5.1.

Claude Fable 5.1 profile · Qwen3.7 Flash profile · Measure it on your traffic