Compare/Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) vs GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)

Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)vsGPT-6 Astra (xhigh)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Anthropic

Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)

Input
$10/M
Output
$50/M
Speed
55 tok/s
TTFT
8.71s
OpenAI

GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)

Input
$10/M
Output
$50/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Tie
Faster (tok/s)
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)
Lower Latency
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricClaude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)
Input ($/M tokens)$10$10
Output ($/M tokens)$50$50
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)$15.00
GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)$15.00

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)
55 tok/s
GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)
8.71s
GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) and GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) is strongest on Coding Index (77.1), Intelligence Index (60.5). GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) leads on Coding Index (75.9), Intelligence Index (61.0).

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, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) costs $1050.00 ($12600/year); GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) costs $1050.00 ($12600/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) ≈ $150.00/run, GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) ≈ $150.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) ≈ $7000/run, GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) ≈ $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

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.
  • Aggregate benchmark score (sum across 12 categories, capped at 100): Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) = 138, GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) = 137. Within 15% — effectively equivalent if both meet the threshold your product requires.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
60.561.0
Coding Index
77.175.9
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback)1 wins
1 winsGPT-6 Astra (xhigh)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) or GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)?

Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) generates tokens faster at 55 tok/s vs — tok/s. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) also has lower time-to-first-token (8.71s vs —s).

When should I use Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) vs GPT-6 Astra (xhigh)?

Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Medium Effort, Default Fallback) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.