Claude Fable 5.1 vs HY3
Select two models to compare their coding performance, pricing, and features.
Key Takeaways
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 | HY3 |
|---|---|---|
| Coding Index | 120.65 | 88.93 |
| Coding tier | S+ | B |
| Input Price | $10/1M | $0.132/1M |
| Output Price | $50/1M | $0.528/1M |
| Context Window | 1M | 262.14K |
Coding Index
Coding Index · Reference baseline: 100
Integer index difference: 31.72
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Verdict
The models have different editorial tier assessments. The index is supplementary and cannot predict performance on every development task.
Capabilities & Use Cases Comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 Tier S+
- •Multi-file refactoring
- •Front-end development
- •Agentic coding
- •Long-running refactors and visual development
HY3 Tier B
- •Bilingual development (CN/EN)
- •Budget reasoning tasks
- •Code generation and debugging
- •Chinese tech ecosystem
- •Tencent's latest reasoning-focused model
- •Strong bilingual Chinese-English coding support
- •Competitive performance for its price tier
- •Growing ecosystem in Chinese tech
Claude Fable 5.1
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · Claude Fable 5.1
Cross-checked
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · Claude Code · max: 57.88% · 95% CI ± 3.76%
Artificial Analysis · Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
Test configuration: max
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 91.39% · SciCode: 63.08%
LiveBench · 2026-06-25 · claude-fable-5-1-max-effort
Coding: 86.38% · Agentic Coding: 66.06%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
HY3
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · HY3
Single-source measurements
Test configuration: unspecified
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 64.42% · SciCode: 48.61%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
API cost estimate
1M input + 200K output (USD):
Claude Fable 5.1: $20.0000
HY3: $0.2376
Estimates use the displayed channel and time band; DeepSeek uses peak rates. Cache discounts, tool fees, long-context price tiers and uncounted additional tokens are excluded.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which model is better for coding: Claude Fable 5.1 or HY3?
Claude Fable 5.1 has a higher reference index on the selected shared benchmark configuration than HY3 (120.65 vs 88.93, a 31.72-point difference). This does not by itself establish general coding superiority. Editorial tiers: Claude Fable 5.1 = S+; HY3 = B. Tiers are separate editorial assessments and do not establish a reliable order within a tier.
How do Claude Fable 5.1 and HY3 compare in API pricing and costs?
Claude Fable 5.1: $10/1M input, $50/1M output (OpenRouter quote); HY3: $0.132/1M input, $0.528/1M output (OpenRouter quote). 1M input + 200K output (USD): $20.0000 vs $0.2376.
What are the context window sizes of Claude Fable 5.1 and HY3?
Claude Fable 5.1 provides a 1,000,000 token context window, while HY3 provides 262,144 tokens.