AI Trend Notifier
EN

$ diff claude-fable-5-1 longcat-2-0

Claude Fable 5.1 vs LongCat-2.0

Values come from Claude Fable 5.1 and LongCat-2.0, 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.

What actually differs

Context window
Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
Input price
LongCat-2.0 at $0.3/M against $10/M — 33.3× 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
LongCat-2.0 at $1.2/M against $50/M — 41.7× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
Weights
LongCat-2.0 publishes weights (MIT (commercially permissive)); Claude Fable 5.1 is API-only. That decides self-hosting, air-gapped deployment and fine-tuning before any capability question does.
Recency
Claude Fable 5.1 shipped 63 days after LongCat-2.0 (2026-09-01 vs 2026-06-30).

Full spec

AttributeClaude Fable 5.1LongCat-2.0
DeveloperAnthropicMeituan
Released2026-09-012026-06-30
Context window1M tokens1 million tokens (LongCat Sparse Attention / LSA)
Pricing$10/M input · $50/M output · cache reads $0.25/M$0.30/M input · $1.20/M output ($0.006/M cached input) — OpenRouter catalogue, read 2026-07-28. Open weights, so this is hosted-inference pricing rather than a licence fee.
Licenseproprietary (API-only; no weight release)MIT (commercially permissive)
AvailabilityClaude API as `claude-fable-5-1`; plan-tier access is disputed — see `## Conflicting Reports`Open-sourced 2026-06-30; previously served on OpenRouter under the codename "Owl Alpha"

How these pages are produced

← all comparisons