ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Fable 5.1 vs Inkling Small

Too close to call on our weighted score (Inkling Small 68, Claude Fable 5.1 66, Qwen3.8 27B 66). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 27B

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI151.8
    • Price$0.40 / $2.55
    • Context262K
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Fable 5.1

    Released Sep 1, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI166.4
    • Price$10.00 / $50.00
    • Context1M
  3. Thinking Machines

    Inkling Small

    Released Jul 30, 2026

    68/100
    • ECI150.5
    • Price$0.58 / $1.44
    • Context1.05M
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Inkling Small 68/100, Claude Fable 5.1 66/100, Qwen3.8 27B 66/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5.1 for raw capability, Inkling Small on price and Inkling Small for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Fable 5.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5.1 166.4 · Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 · Inkling Small 150.5
  • Lowest priceInkling SmallInkling Small $0.795 · Qwen3.8 27B $0.938 · Claude Fable 5.1 $20.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextInkling SmallInkling Small 1,048,576 · Claude Fable 5.1 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video · Claude Fable 5.1: Text, Images, PDFs · Inkling Small: Text, Images, Audio
  • Self-hostingQwen3.8 27B and Inkling SmallPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.8 27BClaude Fable 5.1Inkling Small
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%799777
Price25%49052
Inputs & features15%708070
Context window10%376061
Overall100%66/10066/10068/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Fable 5.1 vs Inkling Small specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Fable 5.1AnthropicInkling SmallThinking Machines
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)151.8166.4 (best)150.5
ECI rank#54 of 165#6 of 165 (best)#58 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions——88.5%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—90.2% (best)46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—100% (best)90.0%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—70.8% (best)19.1%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$10.00$0.58
Output$2.55$50.00$1.44 (best)
Cached input—$0.25$0.116 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.938$20.00$0.795 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 49 providersOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Thinking Machines API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens128,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesYes
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoYes
VideoYesNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpenApache-2.0
API model ID—claude-fable-5-1thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small
API providers53 (best)3712
ReleasedAug 14, 2026Sep 1, 2026Jul 30, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.8 27B$9.10
  • Claude Fable 5.1$200.00
  • Inkling Small$8.68
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling Small?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Inkling Small 68/100, Claude Fable 5.1 66/100, Qwen3.8 27B 66/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Fable 5.1 for raw capability, Inkling Small on price and Inkling Small for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B, Claude Fable 5.1 or Inkling Small?

Inkling Small is cheaper at $0.58 input / $1.44 output per million tokens (official Thinking Machines API price). Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.40 input / $2.55 output per million tokens (median across 49 API providers); Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00 input / $50.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.795 per million tokens for Inkling Small versus $0.938 for Qwen3.8 27B (1.2× as much) and $20.00 for Claude Fable 5.1 (25× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5.1 166.4 (#6 of 165), Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 of 165) and Inkling Small 150.5 (#58 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (163.6–170.8 vs 149.9–153.6), so the gap is a real one.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 27B, Claude Fable 5.1 and Inkling Small yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Fable 5.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Inkling Small has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.1 and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768, Claude Fable 5.1 up to 128,000, Inkling Small up to 1,048,576 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video; Claude Fable 5.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; Inkling Small accepts text, images and audio. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.8 27B and Inkling Small publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Fable 5.1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the newest, released Sep 1, 2026. Qwen3.8 27B came out Aug 14, 2026; Inkling Small came out Jul 30, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Fable 5.1 Jun 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.