Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) vs Claude Fable 5.1 (high)
Results updated 3 November 2026 · Both in Claude Code · How we benchmark
Verdict
Claude Fable 5.1 (high) edges Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) by 1 point, and is faster; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) is cheaper.
- Cost per task
- $0.11 vs $0.44
- Time per task
- 1.2 min vs 1.1 min
- Tokens per attempt
- 158k vs 132k
- Image input
- Yes vs No data
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code scores higher on GeoBenchX and Vision agents; Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code scores higher on Earth-Bench V2 and GS-QA2. Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code is cheaper ($0.11 against $0.44 per task), but Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code is faster (1.1 min against 1.2 min).
Where they differ most
By kind of work, share of tasks passed, 0 to 100 · Higher is better
| Kind of work | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) | Claude Fable 5.1 (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Climate and time series | 66 | 76 |
| Making maps | 88 | 79 |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis | 82 | 87 |
| Change detection | 68 | 64 |
Where the tasks are set: each kind of work links to its tasks and scoresCharts for each: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code · Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code.
Side by side
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code | Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code |
|---|---|---|
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text only | 79 | 80 |
| Geospatial Agent Index: Text + vision | 82 | 82 |
| Earth-Bench V2 score | 68 | 72 |
| GeoBenchX score | 81 | 80 |
| GS-QA2 score | 87 | 90 |
| Vision agents score | 89 | 88 |
| GeoAgentBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 98 | 100 |
| GeoAnalystBench score (Guided workflows; not in the Agent Index) | 95 | 95 |
| OGD4All score (standalone; in no index) | 97 | 97 |
| GeoNatureAgent score (standalone; in no index) | 100 | 100 |
| MultiGlobeQA score (standalone; in no index) | 79 | 79 |
| GeoAgentEval score (standalone; in no index) | 100 | 100 |
| ImpactMesh score (standalone; in no index) | No data | No data |
| Remote sensing and raster analysis score | 82 | 87 |
| Change detection score | 68 | 64 |
| GIS analysis score | 89 | 88 |
| Climate and time series score | 66 | 76 |
| Making maps score | 88 | 79 |
| Cost per task | $0.11 | $0.44 |
| Time per task (at 100 output tokens/s) | 1.2 min | 1.1 min |
| Tokens per attempt | 158k | 132k |
| Turns per attempt | 6.6 | 5.4 |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $2.00 | $10.00 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $10.00 | $50.00 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 | 200,000 |
| Developer | Anthropic | Anthropic |
Frequently asked questions
Which scores higher on the Geospatial Agent Index, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code or Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code?
Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code, 80 to 79.
Which is cheaper per task, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code or Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code, $0.11 to $0.44.
Which writes fewer output tokens per task, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code or Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code?
Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code, 3k to 4k.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code or Claude Fable 5.1 (high), Claude Code?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh), Claude Code, 1,000,000 tokens to 200,000 tokens.