Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Meta / Open's Llama 4 Maverick (400B) and Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.1.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick (400B) | Claude Fable 5.1 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | Meta / Open | Anthropic | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $0.80 | $10.00 | Llama 4 Maverick (400B) (92% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | $0.80 | $0.25 | Claude Fable 5.1 lower |
| Output / 1M | $1.60 | $50.00 | Llama 4 Maverick (400B) lower |
| Context Window | 1M | 200k | Llama 4 Maverick (400B) (1M) |
| Max Generation Tokens | 16.4k | 32.8k | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Tokenizer Family | Meta Llama 3/4 Tiktoken (128k vocabulary) | Anthropic Claude BPE (~65k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for Llama 4 Maverick (400B) when your engineering requirements prioritize Meta / Open's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Calibrated Llama 3 Tokenizer (±3%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $0.8/M input rate.
Opt for Claude Fable 5.1 when looking for Anthropic's tooling integration, specific context window depth (200k tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $50/M rate.