Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.1 and OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $10.00 | $2.50 | GPT-5.6 Sol (75% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | $0.25 | $2.00 | Claude Fable 5.1 lower |
| Output / 1M | $50.00 | $10.00 | GPT-5.6 Sol lower |
| Context Window | 200k | 200k | Equal |
| Max Generation Tokens | 32.8k | 16.4k | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Tokenizer Family | Anthropic Claude BPE (~65k vocabulary) | OpenAI o200k_base (200k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for Claude Fable 5.1 when your engineering requirements prioritize Anthropic's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Calibrated Claude Tokenizer (±3%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $10/M input rate.
Opt for GPT-5.6 Sol when looking for OpenAI's tooling integration, specific context window depth (200k tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $10/M rate.