Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6.1 Sol are within three points on the Models at Work leaderboard, which we treat as a tie (71 vs 70 out of 100). On independent tests alone, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead (100 vs 81). GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper: 1,000 support replies cost about $10 at list price, against $40 on Claude Fable 5.2, which is 4 times as much. On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, one of the independent tests, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 65 to 55.
| Claude Fable 5.2 · Anthropic | GPT-6.1 Sol · OpenAI | |
|---|---|---|
| Leaderboard rank | #3 | #6 |
| Score (0–100) | 71 | 70 |
| Kind of work | Hardest problems | Everyday default |
| Price per 1M tokens | $8 to read · $40 to write | $2 to read · $10 to write |
| Reads at once | 1M tokens (about 750,000 words) | 1M tokens (about 750,000 words) |
| Where you can get it | Claude Team and Enterprise, Amazon Bedrock, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (Google Cloud), Microsoft Foundry | OpenAI API, Amazon Bedrock, Microsoft Foundry, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (Google Cloud), ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise and Edu, Microsoft 365 Copilot |
| Can a company host it itself | No | No |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 65 | 55 |
| Humanity's Last Exam, Diamond (Scale) | 72.40 | Not measured |
| Humanity's Sixth Sense (Scale) | 59.50 | 46.60 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 173 | Not measured |
| Best for | Financial and technical analysis with no room for error, Multi-step research, Work Claude Opus 5.5 gets wrong | Drafting proposals and reports, Summarising long documents, Back-office tasks with several steps, Answering questions from company documents |
Cost of 1,000 jobs
| 1,000 of these | Claude Fable 5.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Support repliesthe customer message, the account notes and two help articles read; a 300-word reply written | $40 | $10 |
| Documents processeda two-page invoice or form read; the fields pulled out | $28 | $7 |
| Calls summariseda 40-minute call transcript read; a summary and next steps written | $104 | $26 |
| Contracts revieweda 40-page contract read against a checklist; a memo of issues written | $300 | $75 |
| Drafts writtena brief and one example read; a 600-word email or proposal section written | $44 | $11 |
Worked out from each vendor’s list price and a fixed size for each job. A product built on a model charges its own price on top. See what every model costs for the same jobs.
Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for
- Financial and technical analysis with no room for error
- Multi-step research
- Work Claude Opus 5.5 gets wrong
The strongest model on the board for problems the others get wrong: first on every independent test read, at twice the list price of Claude Opus 5.5.
Caveats: Anthropic's own advice is to start with Opus 5.5 and move up only when its answers fall short. It writes more per answer: Artificial Analysis's test run cost $26.54 per task at the top effort setting against $10.04 for Opus 5.5, a wider gap than the list prices suggest. On Claude Team it is offered on premium seats, up to half the weekly usage limit; Enterprise bills usage at API rates, per Anthropic's pricing page. Mythos 5.2 is the same model without the cyber and biology safeguards, open only through Anthropic's verification programs. It ranks third, not first, because price is 30% of the score and this is the second most expensive model here; on independent test results alone it is first.
Choose GPT-6.1 Sol for
- Drafting proposals and reports
- Summarising long documents
- Back-office tasks with several steps
- Answering questions from company documents
The sensible OpenAI default: 55 on Artificial Analysis's index against 57 for GPT-6 Astra, at a fifth of Astra's list price.
Caveats: Two points separate it from Astra on the index, which is within noise; test Astra only where Sol's answers fall short. The ChatGPT plans are listed from our researcher's reading of OpenAI's launch page, which blocked automated reading this run; on ChatGPT Enterprise and Edu an owner has to switch the model on. In Microsoft 365 Copilot it is rolling out in phases across Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Chat with usage limits Microsoft has not published, per Microsoft's 30 September post; admins commenting there report users already reaching them.
What people running them say
Claude Fable 5.2: One Hacker News (developer forum) launch thread, read through Signals: a commenter who tried it says it pulls ahead of Opus 5.5 only on very ambitious requests, another says Opus 5.5 at a high effort setting was enough for a software project of 125,000 lines, and a third asks how anyone measures the difference at the price. Too little to score.
GPT-6.1 Sol: The launch thread on Hacker News, a developer forum, argued over its own title: 'near-Astra for a fifth of the price' drew 955 comments, most of them about which work to send to Sol and which to a dearer model.
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6.1 Sol are within three points on the Models at Work leaderboard, which we treat as a tie (71 vs 70 out of 100). On independent tests alone, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead (100 vs 81). GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper: 1,000 support replies cost about $10 at list price, against $40 on Claude Fable 5.2, which is 4 times as much. On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, one of the independent tests, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 65 to 55.
When should I choose Claude Fable 5.2 over GPT-6.1 Sol?
Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for financial and technical analysis with no room for error, multi-step research, work claude opus 5.5 gets wrong. The strongest model on the board for problems the others get wrong: first on every independent test read, at twice the list price of Claude Opus 5.5.
When should I choose GPT-6.1 Sol over Claude Fable 5.2?
Choose GPT-6.1 Sol for drafting proposals and reports, summarising long documents, back-office tasks with several steps, answering questions from company documents. The sensible OpenAI default: 55 on Artificial Analysis's index against 57 for GPT-6 Astra, at a fifth of Astra's list price.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8 per million tokens it reads (input) and $40 per million tokens it writes (output) on Anthropic's list price (Claude pricing, read Nov 12, 2026). A token is about three-quarters of a word. GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2 per million tokens it reads (input) and $10 per million tokens it writes (output) on OpenAI's list price (OpenAI API pricing, read Nov 12, 2026). A token is about three-quarters of a word.
What do 1,000 jobs cost on Claude Fable 5.2 and GPT-6.1 Sol?
At list price: 1,000 support replies cost $40 on Claude Fable 5.2 and $10 on GPT-6.1 Sol; 1,000 documents processed cost $28 on Claude Fable 5.2 and $7 on GPT-6.1 Sol; 1,000 calls summarised cost $104 on Claude Fable 5.2 and $26 on GPT-6.1 Sol; 1,000 contracts reviewed cost $300 on Claude Fable 5.2 and $75 on GPT-6.1 Sol; 1,000 drafts written cost $44 on Claude Fable 5.2 and $11 on GPT-6.1 Sol. A product built on either model charges its own price on top.
Scores come from the Models at Work leaderboard: Score is 0 to 100 and computed, not typed. 40% is independent testing (Artificial Analysis, Arena, Scale, Epoch, Vals and others; each test is scaled against the best score on this board, and tests of real work, such as finished freelance projects or professional tasks, count double the exams). 30% is price: the vendor's list price for a typical mix of reading and writing, on a fixed scale from $0.05 to $60 per million tokens, so a model that costs a fifth as much gains real ground. 15% is what people report after running it, from Signals and linked threads. 15% is fit: how much text it can take in at once and where a business can get it (the products and clouds that carry it), with a small credit for open weights. A missing component drops out and the rest are reweighted. A model with no independent test yet is provisional and ranks below every measured one. Within three points is a tie. Vendor-published figures are labelled and never counted. Prices are vendor list prices where published; a typical mix assumes three parts reading to one part writing.