Model Comparison
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
vs. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
Comparing 2 AI models · 0 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Anthropic
Recommended Pick
DeV4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)7 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
100.0 value score
39.5 reasoning / $0.52/1M
Lowest Price
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
53.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
81.6 coding index
Differences That Matter
Best value
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) is 33.3x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback).
Speed gap
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) generates about 2.9x as many tokens per second as Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback).
Reasoning gap
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) leads V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) by 13.9 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) wins 7 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Secure AI Chat made in Europe
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) | An Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.30/1M | $10.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.20/1M | $50.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.52/1M | $20.00/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Anthropic |
| Release Date | Sep 10, 2026 | Sep 1, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 194.3 tok/s | 66.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 960ms | 304160ms |
| Latency | 11250ms | 304160ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 3.5 |
| Reasoning Score | 39.5 | 53.4 |
| Intelligence | 39.5 | 53.4 |
| Coding | — | 81.6 |
Key Takeaways
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) offers the best value at $0.30/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 53.4 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) reaches a 81.6 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V4.1 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
