Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) | GPT-6 Astra (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $10 | $10 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $50 | $50 |
Verdict. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, GPT-6 Astra (high) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GPT-6 Astra (high) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) is strongest on Coding Index (79.1), Intelligence Index (62.5). GPT-6 Astra (high) leads on Coding Index (77.1), Intelligence Index (60.3).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. Anthropic and OpenAI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Anthropic tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while OpenAI often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) costs $1050.00 ($12600/year); GPT-6 Astra (high) costs $1050.00 ($12600/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) ≈ $150.00/run, GPT-6 Astra (high) ≈ $150.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) ≈ $7000/run, GPT-6 Astra (high) ≈ $7000/run.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for GPT-6 Astra (high). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) generates tokens faster at 56 tok/s vs — tok/s. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) also has lower time-to-first-token (30.36s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) for stronger benchmark performance, and Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort, Default Fallback) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.