Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | o1 | Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $15 | $10 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $60 | $50 |
Verdict. Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.2× the per-million-token cost, Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. o1 is strongest on Coding Index (39.7), Intelligence Index (23.9). Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) leads on Coding Index (76.5), Intelligence Index (62.1).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. OpenAI and Anthropic sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: OpenAI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Anthropic 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): o1 costs $1350.00 ($16200/year); Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) costs $1050.00 ($12600/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): o1 ≈ $195.00/run, Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) ≈ $150.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): o1 ≈ $9000/run, Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) ≈ $7000/run. Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
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.
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $20.00/M tokens vs $26.25/M for o1.
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for o1. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) generates tokens faster at 67 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) has lower time-to-first-token (148.12s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) for lower cost, Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) for stronger benchmark performance, and Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.