Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Claude Fable 5.2 leads DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 on coding, 87.8 to 66.9 on the Vibe Coding Index, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs 66.7x less per output token ($0.60 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 51 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Fable 5.2 Replace DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Claude Fable 5.2Anthropic
Coding
87.8
Overall
91.7
Output $/M
$40.00
46
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek
Coding
66.9
Overall
62.8
Output $/M
$0.60
5
vs boards won of 51 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: which to pick

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 66.9 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017.

Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for output tokens 66.7x cheaper ($0.60 vs $40.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Model AClaude Fable 5.2Anthropic87.8/1004 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek66.9/1004 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
51
Claude Fable 5.2 only
17
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 only
9
Like-for-like categories
8 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 66.9 from 4 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 29.4 points apart on average over 11 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Claude Fable 5.2 80.2% against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 25.3%, 54.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.60 per million output tokens, 66.7x apart.
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Fable 5.2BarsDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Ties
Coding111
Intelligence20
Agentic work62
Reasoning101
Math40
Knowledge31
Web design60
General40
All shared boards465
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index111
Coding benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
LiveBench coding79.2%80.4%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
LMArena WebDev18381664Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)65.2%31.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)93.8%87.7%Claude Fable 5.2
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured44.2%Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)19.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)62.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SciCode67.7%55.9%Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run)61.6%33.8%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierCode 2.049.1%28.5%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierSWE69.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
ALE-Bench2509.81622.0Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: React19151675Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTML17381696Claude Fable 5.2
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1609Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
GameBench 299.169.9Claude Fable 5.2
Terminal-Bench 4.0Not measured40.0%Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
CursorBench 4.060.0%47.7%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
AA Intelligence Index64.628.6Claude Fable 5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index173.4159.4Claude Fable 5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index62
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1402Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1325Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets14341263Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench research94.5%78.6%Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench browser86.9%67.2%Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench long agentic82.9%38.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured57.0%Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)32.1%44.4%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)46.1%45.2%Claude Fable 5.2
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)5.0%14.2%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured61.8%Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)83.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Vals Science Index63.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
APEX-Agents80.1%69.8%Claude Fable 5.2
Remote Labor Index41.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
SpireClimb15.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index101
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
LiveBench reasoning88.8%89.1%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)74.3%43.3%Claude Fable 5.2
HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)80.2%25.3%Claude Fable 5.2
CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run)76.5%27.5%Claude Fable 5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)93.9%93.2%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI98.5%94.5%Claude Fable 5.2
ARC-AGI-293.8%78.1%Claude Fable 5.2
SimpleBench94.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Chess puzzles79.0%46.0%Claude Fable 5.2
Mystery game puzzles90.0%49.0%Claude Fable 5.2
EBR-bench90.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run)72.4%20.5%Claude Fable 5.2
GoBench25661633Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
OTIS Mock AIME99.7%99.4%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 395.1%71.2%Claude Fable 5.2
FrontierMath, tier 4100.0%46.3%Claude Fable 5.2
ProofBench100.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
MathArena82.8%46.7%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index31
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
AA-Omniscience66.82.1Claude Fable 5.2
SimpleQA Verified94.0%42.5%Claude Fable 5.2
PRBench Finance47.1%47.1%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
PRBench Legal49.0%47.3%Claude Fable 5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
Design Arena: websites13511294Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: UI components13711283Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: game dev13961250Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1264Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Design Arena: 3D15171342Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: all code categories13731286Claude Fable 5.2
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1246Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1231Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LiveBench design85.1%79.8%Claude Fable 5.2
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
General benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
Vals Index71.3%61.3%Claude Fable 5.2
LiveBench data analysis81.5%79.5%Claude Fable 5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.3%82.7%Claude Fable 5.2
GDPval-AA18311746Claude Fable 5.2
DTBench99.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
LMCA70.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
Furniture assembly90.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Fable 5.2 measured
MultiChallengeNot measured74.9%Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.028Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.0004Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$0.520Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.0093Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.2$2.00Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.036Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
MakerAnthropicDeepSeek
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 9, 2026October 17, 2026
Context window1M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$8.00$0.15
Output $/Mtok$40.00$0.60
Coding index87.866.9
Independent measurements behind it44
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for coding?

Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 66.9 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for output tokens 66.7x cheaper ($0.60 vs $40.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comparison based on?

51 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. Claude Fable 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/claude-fable-5-2-vs-deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017" title="Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/claude-fable-5-2-vs-deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017">LLMBenchmark.ai, Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017</a></p>