Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.1 and Meta / Together's Llama 4 Vivas.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 | Llama 4 Vivas | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | Anthropic | Meta / Together | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $10.00 | $0.25 | Llama 4 Vivas (98% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | $0.25 | $0.06 | Llama 4 Vivas lower |
| Output / 1M | $50.00 | $0.85 | Llama 4 Vivas lower |
| Context Window | 1M | 1M | Equal |
| Max Generation Tokens | 32k | 128k | Llama 4 Vivas |
| Tokenizer Family | Anthropic Claude BPE (~65k vocabulary) | Meta Llama 3 Tokenizer (128k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for Claude Fable 5.1 when your engineering requirements prioritize Anthropic's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Calibrated Claude Tokenizer (±3%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $10/M input rate.
Opt for Llama 4 Vivas when looking for Meta / Together's tooling integration, specific context window depth (1M tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $0.85/M rate.