Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra

A direct, empirical evaluation of Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) against GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI).

Claude Fable 5.1

Developed by Anthropic · Proprietary Frontier parameters

Full-repository software refactoring, agentic tool workflows, formal verification, and 1.5M-token needle retrieval.

GPT-6 Astra

Developed by OpenAI · Proprietary Frontier parameters

Complex multi-step engineering, formal math proofs, autonomous computer/browser navigation, and CAD synthesis.

Metric Claude Fable 5.1 GPT-6 Astra
SWE-bench Verified 82.8% 79.4%
MMLU-Pro 92.4% 91.2%
MATH-500 97.9% 98.6%
Context Window 1,500,000 tokens 1,050,000 tokens
Input Pricing (per 1M) $12.00 $10.00
Output Pricing (per 1M) $60.00 $50.00

Architectural & Practical Deployment Analysis

Evaluating Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) alongside GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI) highlights key technical trade-offs across neural parameter scale and compute efficiency. Claude Fable 5.1 executes across Proprietary Frontier total parameters with Dynamic Recurrent MoE active per token, whereas GPT-6 Astra operates on Proprietary Frontier parameters with Dynamic Recurrent MoE active per token.

On SWE-bench Verified software engineering tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 achieves 82.8% autonomous resolution rate, compared to 79.4% for GPT-6 Astra. On complex reasoning benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 posts 92.4% on MMLU-Pro and 97.9% on MATH-500, against 91.2% and 98.6% respectively for GPT-6 Astra.

From an operational economics perspective, processing 10,000,000 mixed tokens (7M input / 3M output) costs approximately $264.00 on Claude Fable 5.1 versus $220.00 on GPT-6 Astra.

Recommendation: Deploy Claude Fable 5.1 when your infrastructure prioritizes full-repository software refactoring, agentic tool workflows, formal verification, and 1.5m-token needle retrieval.. Deploy GPT-6 Astra when workload requirements favor complex multi-step engineering, formal math proofs, autonomous computer/browser navigation, and cad synthesis..