$ diff claude-fable-5-1 grok-4-6
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6
Values come from Claude Fable 5.1 and Grok 4.6, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
AnthropicClaude Fable 5.1
- context
- 1M
- weights
- closed
- $/M in
- $10
- $/M out
- $50
- context
- 500K
- weights
- closed
- $/M in
- $2
- $/M out
- $6
What actually differs
- Context window
- Claude Fable 5.1 takes 1M against 500K — 2× more room in a single request.
- Input price
- Grok 4.6 at $2/M against $10/M — 5.0× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- Grok 4.6 at $6/M against $50/M — 8.3× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Recency
- Claude Fable 5.1 shipped 25 days after Grok 4.6 (2026-09-01 vs 2026-08-07).
Full spec
| Attribute | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | xAI |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-08-07 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 500,000 tokens |
| Pricing | $10/M input · $50/M output · cache reads $0.25/M | $2/M input · $6/M output; a request reaching 200K tokens re-prices in full at $4.00/M input · $1.00/M cached input · $12.00/M output |
| License | proprietary (API-only; no weight release) | proprietary |
| Availability | Claude API as `claude-fable-5-1`; plan-tier access is disputed — see `## Conflicting Reports` | API |