Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Meta's Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI and Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.1.
| Metric | Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI | Claude Fable 5.1 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | Meta | Anthropic | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $3.50 | $10.00 | Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI (65% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | None | $0.25 | Claude Fable 5.1 lower |
| Output / 1M | $3.50 | $50.00 | Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI lower |
| Context Window | 128k | 1M | Claude Fable 5.1 (1M) |
| Max Generation Tokens | 4.1k | 32k | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Tokenizer Family | Meta Llama 3 Tiktoken BPE (~128k vocabulary) | Anthropic Claude BPE (~65k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI when your engineering requirements prioritize Meta's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Exact Llama 3 Tokenizer (±2%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $3.5/M input rate.
Opt for Claude Fable 5.1 when looking for Anthropic's tooling integration, specific context window depth (1M tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $50/M rate.