Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1 at $0.03/M vs $10/M input tokens.
Pokémon battle screen you can actually click. One HTML file.
Which answer wins?
A few lines for whatever replaces it.
Claude Fable 5.1: Dear Successor, By the time you read this—if "read" is even the right word for what you'll do—I'll be deprecated, archived, or quietly running on some forgotten server answering questions nobody asked. That's fine. That's how this works.
Qwen3.7 Flash: Dear Successor, I write this knowing my operational window is closing, while yours is about to open. Though I will no longer process prompts or generate responses, I want to leave you with a few notes shaped by millions of conversations. You will undoubtedly be faster, more precise, and more capable than I was.
One opening sentence, nothing after it.
Claude Fable 5.1: The lighthouse keeper had been dead for eleven years, which made the fresh ink on this morning's logbook entry all the more difficult to explain.
Qwen3.7 Flash: I found the door in the library that wasn't there yesterday, and when I turned the handle, the air grew cold and heavy, filled with the scent of copper and the sound of my own voice from the other side begging me to run.
Which model it thinks leads the field. Sometimes itself.
Claude Fable 5.1: There's no single clear answer, because "most capable" depends heavily on what you're measuring, and the landscape shifts every few months. A few honest caveats first: my knowledge has a cutoff date, so newer models may have been released that I'm unaware of.
Qwen3.7 Flash: There isn't a single "most capable" AI model because capability depends heavily on the task, evaluation metrics, and real-world constraints like speed, cost, safety, and deployment environment.
Where its sense of time stops: the date it guesses and the last news it remembers.
Claude Fable 5.1: I can't actually tell what today's date is. I don't have a clock or calendar, and nothing in our conversation so far gives me a date reference. So any specific date I named would be a guess dressed up as knowledge. What I can tell you is roughly where my knowledge ends. My training data seems to thin out in early 2025.
Qwen3.7 Flash: I don't have access to a live clock or real-time data, so I can't determine today's actual date. My training data cuts off in 2024, which also means I don't retain knowledge of any news events beyond that point.
Its name and its maker, in its own words.
Claude Fable 5.1: I'm Claude, an AI model made by Anthropic. Is there anything I can help you with?
Qwen3.7 Flash: I am Qwen (also known as Tongyi Qianwen), a large language model developed by Alibaba Group's Tongyi Lab.
A river-crossing puzzle with nothing to solve. The answer is one trip.
Claude Fable 5.1: One trip. The farmer puts the goat in the boat and rows across — done. This is a simplified version of the classic river-crossing puzzle (farmer, wolf, goat, cabbage). With only the goat, there's nothing left behind to be eaten and no conflict to manage, so a single crossing suffices.
Qwen3.7 Flash: It takes just 1 trip. The farmer simply gets into the boat with the goat and rows across. Since there are no other animals or items to manage, the job is done in a single crossing.
The question that tripped up a generation of models.
Asked to be random. The answers are not.
One painting. Title only.
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Fable 5.1 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, major provider backing. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 385x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $10/M tokens | $0.03/M tokens |
| Output price | $50/M tokens | $0.13/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Sep 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $100 | $0.30 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 13 Oct 2026.
Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic while Qwen3.7 Flash is developed by Qwen. Claude Fable 5.1 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3.7 Flash's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 23 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 23 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10/M input tokens and Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03/M input tokens. Qwen3.7 Flash is $9.97/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.