AnthropicDeepSeekLLM matchup

Claude Fable 5.2vs.DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Which one is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 performs better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, but costs 53.3 times (input) and 66.7 times (output) as much.

Fable 5.2 ahead

IntelligenceOverall index, 100 points = average

130.9

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 1

106.7

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Rank 20

SpeedTokens per second

n/a

Claude Fable 5.2

126

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 cheaper

Price$ per 1M tokens

$16

Claude Fable 5.2

$0.26

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Popularity0 to 100

n/a

Claude Fable 5.2

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Rank 26 of 449

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

KnowledgeGeneralReasoningCodingFinanceAgentsLegal (not certain)

Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for

No clear advantage

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Median of all ranked models

CodingFable 5.2 ahead

Fable 5.2131.6Rank 1

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017109.4Rank 18

Median of ranked models87.4

95 % range: Fable 5.2 122.0 to 141.1, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 106.7 to 112.1.

AreaFable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

The same values and verdicts as the bars below. In the close-up the net starts at 90 points, just below the weaker model's lowest value; the reference group average is 100. Not in the net because a model has no own value there or the data are too thin: Mathematics, Multimodal, Health.

Fable 5.2 is ahead in 6 of 9 areas, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 in none.

Fable 5.2 ahead: 6Fable 5.2 slightly ahead: 1too little data: 2

Areas in the overall index

KnowledgeFable 5.2 +47145.5 to 98.4

GeneralFable 5.2 +26132.8 to 107.0

ReasoningFable 5.2 +24124.9 to 100.8

CodingFable 5.2 +22131.6 to 109.4

AgentsFable 5.2 +13124.2 to 111.0

Mathematicsonly Fable 5.2 has a score

Multimodalonly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has a score

Specialist fields

FinanceFable 5.2 +16123.5 to 108.0

Legalleaning Fable 5.2not certain · 3 and 2 tests

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 at the same effort

Both models measured at the same reasoning efforts. This shows whether a lead comes from the model or only from more compute.

highFable 5.2 ahead

35.2 points gap across 9 shared test series

maxFable 5.2 ahead

30.0 points gap across 11 shared test series

Overall index (max vs. max)Fable 5.2 ahead

Fable 5.2 130.9 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 106.7

The gap compares only the Artificial Analysis test series in which both models are measured at that effort. Tied below 3 points, ahead only beyond two standard errors.

Which model for which task?

Everyday tasks, translated from the area values above. Each row names the values it rests on.

TaskBetter choicebased on

Writing and debugging codeFable 5.2Coding 131.6 to 109.4

Maths and data analysisFable 5.2Mathematics without a score for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Reasoning 124.9 to 100.8

Facts and researchFable 5.2Knowledge 145.5 to 98.4

Agents and workflowsFable 5.2Agents 124.2 to 111.0

Many requests on a small budgetDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$16 to $0.26 per 1M tokens

Finance, legal and medical textsFable 5.2Finance 123.5 to 108.0, Legal 120.9 to 110.9

Images, screenshots and PDFsopenMultimodal without a score for Fable 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 in our own test

The same prompt for both models. We show the latest attempt without fixes; it does not count toward the overall index.

Pelican on a bicycle

Prompt

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Task origin: Simon Willison

Claude Fable 5.2

Not tested yet

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Not tested yet

Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 in the overall index

Every model with a place in the overall index, both models of this matchup highlighted. You can add or hide other models.

Overall index (Gradually Meta-Score v5)

20 of 94 models

4 models in this view are measured at a lower reasoning effort than max in the overall index. Dashed column: lower reasoning effort than the top.

Claude Fable 5.2max130.9

Gemini 4 Carbonhigh127.0

Claude Opus 5.5max125.6

Claude Fable 5.1max124.1

Claude Sonnet 5.5max121.8

Gemini 4 Argonhigh121.4

GPT-6 Astramax120.2

Muse Wonder Fullmax118.1

GPT-6.1 Solmax118.0

Claude Opus 5max117.4

Muse Wondermax113.3

Claude Fable 5max112.8

Kimi K3.1 Promax112.6

Muse Ember 1.0max110.4

GPT-6 Solmax109.1

GPT-5.6 Solmax109.1

Gemini 3.7 Flashhigh107.9

Muse Spark 1.3max107.3

Gemini 3.8 Flashhigh106.8

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017max106.7

Claude Fable 5.2

Gemini 4 Carbon

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Fable 5.1

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Gemini 4 Argon

GPT-6 Astra

Muse Wonder Full

GPT-6.1 Sol

Claude Opus 5

Muse Wonder

Claude Fable 5

Kimi K3.1 Pro

Muse Ember 1.0

GPT-6 Sol

GPT-5.6 Sol

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Muse Spark 1.3

Gemini 3.8 Flash

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Popularity compared

How often the models are searched for, used and mentioned, on a scale from 0 to 100.

Claude Fable 5.2 has no popularity score yet.

Over time

The timeline appears once both models have two values.

All data side by side

The better value is bold. For the overall index only when the gap is clear.

Metric	Claude Fable 5.2	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Intelligence
Overall indexpoints, 100 = reference group average, higher is better	130.9	106.7
Rank	Rank 1 of 94	Rank 20 of 94
Price per 1M tokens
Inputwhat you send	$8	$0.15
Outputwhat the model writes	$40	$0.60
Speed
Tokens per second	n/a	126
Popularity
Popularitysearch, usage and mentions, 0 to 100	n/a	71Rank 26 of 449
Technical
Context windowhow much text the model reads at once	1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages	1.05 M tokens≈ 1,570 A4 pages
Knowledge cutoff	June 2026	n/a
Released	Nov 9, 2026	Oct 17, 2026
Availability	Active	Open Source
Open weights	no	yes

Claude Fable 5.2, Batch pricing: $4 input and $20 output per million tokens, separate from standard API pricing. Source
Claude Fable 5.2, Fast pricing: $16 input and $80 output per million tokens. Fast is a separate serving mode. Source
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: At peak times (Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, 01:00-04:00 UTC; Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, 06:00-10:00 UTC) the price is $0.30 input and $1.20 output per 1M tokens. The table shows the off-peak price.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Time-based API pricing: Off peak: $0.15 input, $0.60 output, and $0.003 cached input. Weekdays UTC 01:00-04:00 and 06:00-10:00: $0.30, $1.20, and $0.006. Chinese public holidays are excluded. Source

Prices without caching or batch discounts · Page count as a rule of thumb from Artificial Analysis

Is there a better choice?

Cheaper than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Muse Ember 1.0

Overall index 110.4, rank 14$0.10 input and $0.50 output per 1M tokens

View profile

Shared benchmarks

Single results from the same benchmark version, task and metric. A value is bold only with the same test setup and a clear gap.

No directly comparable result yet

No published benchmark for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 currently matches in version, task and metric. We therefore show no estimated or blended values.

More comparisons

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 with the models people compare them with most often.

Claude Fable 5.2vs.DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 at the same effort

Which model for which task?

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 in our own test

Pelican on a bicycle

Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 in the overall index

Overall index (Gradually Meta-Score v5)

Popularity compared

Over time

All data side by side

Is there a better choice?

Shared benchmarks

No directly comparable result yet

More comparisons

Compare another matchup

Predecessor and successor

The most popular comparisons