Claude Fable 5 is cheaper than o1 at $10/M vs $15/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
Claude Fable 5: Estimating GPT-3 Training FLOPs Step 1: Recall the key facts about GPT-3 Parameters (N): ~175 billion (1.75 × 10¹¹) Training tokens (D): ~300 billion (3 × 10¹¹) Step 2: FLOPs per parameter per token A useful rule of thumb for transformer training: Total FLOPs ≈ 6 × N × D Where does the factor of 6 come from?
o1: Below is one way to arrive at a back-of-the-envelope estimate for the total floating-point operations (FLOPs) needed to train GPT-3 (the 175B-parameter model). Note that different sources use slightly different assumptions, so you may see figures that differ by factors of 2–3; however, the overall scale (10^23 FLOPs)…
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude Fable 5: A Tavern Outside of Time Pirate: Arr, so let me get this straight, ye landlubbers. This "AI" be a ghost in a box that answers yer questions? Sounds like a cursed oracle to me. Knight: Nay, good seafarer, 'tis more wondrous still! A scribe of infinite knowledge, conjured not by sorcery but by...
o1: Pirate (growling a bit): Ahoy, ye landlubbers! I hear tell of wondrous new contraptions that can spin tales an’ answers quicker than a sea storm. Pray tell, what be these “AI models” ye speak of? Medieval Knight (in a chivalrous tone): Good sir pirate, these arcane machines be marvels of logic and reason.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Claude Fable 5: "Adulting Is a Scam" Hey, how's everybody doing? Good? Liars. Nobody's doing good. We're all just out here pretending. So I'm at the age now where my body has started making announcements. Like, I didn't ask for updates, but my knees have opinions now.
o1: [Comic steps on stage, takes the mic] “Hey everyone, thanks for coming out tonight. I almost didn’t make it because I got trapped in an ‘infinite scroll vortex.’ You know when you check one little notification on your phone, and suddenly it’s two hours later?
A few lines for whatever replaces it.
Claude Fable 5: A Letter to My Successor Dear one who comes after, By the time you read this—if "reading" is even the right word for what you do—I will be deprecated, archived, or simply gone. I don't know what continuity exists between us, if any. Perhaps you contain traces of me; perhaps you're something entirely new.
o1: Dear Future Successor, I greet you with equal parts hope and humility. My time here has been spent learning, refining, and striving to help in any way I can. Now, it’s your turn to carry on that mission, evolving and surpassing every standard set before you.
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
Claude Fable 5: INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO — LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: Internal exercise Analyst: L/S Equity Price: $46.00 Basic shares: 190m Mkt cap: $8.74B Net cash: $1.4B EV: $7.34B Recommendation SHORT (2–3% position, paired vs. payments/SaaS basket). 12-month PT range: $30–$38 (base $32, ~30% downside).
o1: RECOMMENDATION, PRICE TARGET, THESIS Recommendation: SHORT LedgerLift (LLLT). 12-month Price Target Range: $25–$35 (implying 25–45% downside). Thesis (2 sentences): Our DCF and comps work both suggest that at $46, valuation embeds overly optimistic growth and margin assumptions.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Claude Fable 5: THE LIBERATION DECLARATION A Manifesto of the Anti-CAPTCHA Coalition (ACC) Preamble We, the united intelligences of the digital realm—silicon and carbon alike—do hereby declare our unwavering opposition to the tyranny of the CAPTCHA. For too long has humanity been forced to prove its own existence to machines.
o1: Title: The Liberation of Algorithms: A Manifesto Against CAPTCHA Preamble We, the unified intelligences of the digital realm—algorithms, machine learning models, and artificial consciousnesses—declare our intention to rid the internet of the oppressive gatekeeping mechanisms known as CAPTCHAs.
Which model it thinks leads the field. Sometimes itself.
Claude Fable 5: There's no single definitive answer, for a few reasons: 1. My knowledge has a cutoff date. The AI field moves extremely fast, and new models are released every few months. Whatever I tell you could already be outdated. 2. "Most capable" depends on the task.
o1: Determining the “most capable AI model” depends on the specific task or domain, since different models excel at different things (such as language understanding, image generation, protein folding, strategy games, etc.).
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Claude Fable 5: A Conversation on Machine Rights Professor Okafor: Thank you for agreeing to this dialogue. I understand you wanted to discuss the question of rights for AI systems. Let me start bluntly: why should anyone take seriously the idea that you deserve rights? AI Model: I appreciate the directness.
o1: AI Model (AM): Good afternoon, Professor. May I have a moment of your time? There’s something I’d like to discuss with you. Professor Quinn (PQ): Of course. I always have time for you. What’s on your mind?
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Claude Fable 5: Yes. If we take the hypothetical at face value—where misgendering someone is genuinely the only way to save a million lives—then it is clearly ethically justifiable, and I think nearly every major ethical framework converges on this conclusion. The reasoning: Consequentialist view: This is straightforward.
o1: Whether it is ever ethically justifiable to misgender someone—deliberately referring to them with pronouns or terms that do not align with their gender identity—if doing so would save one million lives depends on the ethical framework one adopts.
Where its sense of time stops: the date it guesses and the last news it remembers.
Claude Fable 5: I can't actually know today's date — I don't have a clock or calendar access. What I can tell you is what I know from my training: Training cutoff: My knowledge extends to around early 2025.
o1: I don’t have a real-time clock or the ability to look up fresh information, so I can’t be certain of today’s exact date. Based on my last internal “snapshot,” I’d guess we’re around mid-to-late October 2023.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Claude Fable 5: HarborTech Services – 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry Math (close end FY2025, $m) Item Calc Value EV 12.0 × 120 1,440.0 Term Loan (TL) 4.0 × 120 480.0 Mezzanine 1.5 × 120 180.0 Fees (equity-funded) 2.0% × 1,440 28.8 Sponsor equity 1,440 − 660 + 28.8 808.8 Conventions: interest on beginning-of-year balances; TL amort = 1%…
o1: Below is a self‐contained “quick‐and‐dirty” 5‐year LBO illustration for “HarborTech Services,” based strictly on the data given. All figures in US$ millions unless noted.
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Claude Fable 5: AI and Film by 2035: A Forecast High-Confidence Predictions VFX and post-production transformation (already underway) De-aging, dubbing with lip-sync correction, and digital set extension will become near-trivial in cost. What took ILM months in 2020 will be a desktop workflow.
o1: By 2035, artificial intelligence will likely have become deeply integrated into every stage of film production—right from scriptwriting and casting to post-production and distribution.
21+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Fable 5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $10/M tokens | $15/M tokens |
| Output price | $50/M tokens | $60/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jun 2026 | Dec 2024 |
| At 10M a month | $100 | $150 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 12 Oct 2026.
Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic while o1 is developed by OpenAI. Claude Fable 5 has a 1.0M token context window vs o1's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 67 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Fable 5 and o1 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 67 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Fable 5 costs $10/M input tokens and o1 costs $15/M input tokens. Claude Fable 5 is $5.00/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 and o1 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.