Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 leads on coding and reasoning; tool use is a statistical tie; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper per million tokens.
1,000 routed requests a month free · your own provider keys · no card
Free account · 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days · no card
Already have an account? Log in
As of 10 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC · 24-hour board
- 93
- Claude Fable 5.2 on the Combined board, last 24 hours · joint 1st of 26
- 89
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on the Combined board, last 24 hours · joint 24th of 26
- 32×
- price gap per token: Claude Fable 5.2 lists at $8 in / $40 out per 1M tokens, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at $0.30 in / $1.20 out
01
Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at a glance
Both models on the same four boards, the same list-price view and the same drift detectors. Scores carry their standard error; a place is shared, written joint, when the gap is inside that noise.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Combinedscore ± standard error · place, 24-hour board | 93 ± 2.3joint 1st of 26 | 89 ± 2.2joint 24th of 26 |
| Codingscore ± standard error · place, 24-hour board | 93 ± 1.5joint 10th of 26 | 90 ± 0.2joint 24th of 26 |
| Reasoningscore ± standard error · place, 24-hour board | 100 ± 2.5joint 1st of 26 | 92 ± 2.5joint 21st of 26 |
| Tool usescore ± standard error · place, 24-hour board | 87 ± 2.5joint 1st of 26 | 85 ± 2.5joint 24th of 26 |
| List price per 1M tokensinput / output · blended 40/60 | $8 / $40$27.20 blended | $0.30 / $1.20$0.84 blended |
| Median response timecoding tasks, last 30 days | 19 s | 9.3 s |
| Pass ratecoding attempts, last 30 days | 80% | 80% |
| Cost per 1,000 correct answerscoding, last 30 days, every attempt billed | $26.66 | $0.92 |
| Drift statustrend on the 24-hour board · Page-Hinkley per suite | Holding steady | Holding steadyno detection on coding, reasoning and tool use |
| Tracked since | 9 Nov 2026 | 17 May 2026176 days |
The boards re-rank after every run, so the figures here follow the leaderboard: each model’s own page, Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, carry the full history. The whole board for each category is on best LLM for coding, best LLM for reasoning and best AI model for agents.
02
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for coding?
The Coding board: seven repository debugging tasks graded by running the project’s own tests, including hidden tests the model never sees, re-tested every four hours.
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 93 ± 1.5 — joint 10th of the 26 models on the Coding board in the last 24 hours. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 90 ± 0.2 — joint 24th of the 26 models on the Coding board in the last 24 hours. The gap of 3 points is beyond the measurement noise, so Claude Fable 5.2 leads on coding.
Over the last 30 days, Claude Fable 5.2 passed 80% of its coding attempts and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 80%.
See every model on the Coding board on best LLM for coding, or each model’s own page, Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
03
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for reasoning?
The Reasoning board: four long, multi-turn working sessions every day, with continuity checked by running code against rules stated earlier in the session.
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 100 ± 2.5 — joint 1st of the 26 models on the Reasoning board in the last 24 hours. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 92 ± 2.5 — joint 21st of the 26 models on the Reasoning board in the last 24 hours. The gap of 8 points is beyond the measurement noise, so Claude Fable 5.2 leads on reasoning.
See every model on the Reasoning board on best LLM for reasoning.
04
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for agents and tool calling?
The Tool use board: nine tasks, each in a real sandboxed machine — either the job is done at the end or it is not. Task completion, tool selection, parameter accuracy, efficiency, error handling, context awareness and safety are scored.
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 87 ± 2.5 — joint 1st of the 26 models on the Tool use board in the last 24 hours. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 85 ± 2.5 — joint 24th of the 26 models on the Tool use board in the last 24 hours. The gap of 2 points is within the measurement noise, so head to head the two are a statistical tie on tool use; the board places them apart because a place is set against the leader of the group above, not against the other model.
See every model on the Tool use board on best AI model for agents.
05
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
List prices are each provider’s standard rate per million tokens, cache-miss input and output. Cost per correct answer counts every attempt on the coding tasks, failed ones included, over the last 30 days.
Claude Fable 5.2 lists at $8 in / $40 out per 1M tokens; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at $0.30 in / $1.20 out.
On a 40/60 input–output blend, Claude Fable 5.2 costs about 32× as much per token as DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
Over the last 30 days, 1,000 correct coding answers cost about $26.66 with Claude Fable 5.2 and $0.92 with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, every attempt billed, failed ones included.
The cheapest model that still passes the tests is on best value AI model.
06
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Median response time of one attempt or one session, from the same runs as the scores, over the last 30 days.
Median response time on the coding tasks over the last 30 days: Claude Fable 5.2 19 s, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 9.3 s.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash answers about 2× faster.
On the reasoning sessions 1.3 min against 1.0 min and on the tool-use sessions 1.2 min against 1.6 min (Claude Fable 5.2 first).
Every model’s median is on fastest AI model.
07
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash getting worse?
Page-Hinkley change-point detection (a CUSUM-family test) runs per suite on each model’s daily median, with every constant published; a real shift is confirmed over days, not hours. An hourly canary of two fixed coding probes catches sharp drops.
Claude Fable 5.2 is holding steady on the 24-hour board.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is holding steady on the 24-hour board; no Page-Hinkley detection on coding, reasoning or tool use.
The family pages answer the question for every model of a provider: Is Claude getting worse? and Is DeepSeek getting worse?. The method is on AI drift detection.
Three models free · email when a watched model's coding score falls five points in a week
Three models free · email when a watched model's coding score falls five points in a week
08
Should I use Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Only a difference that clears a threshold counts: a board lead beyond the measurement noise (the leaderboard’s own tie rule), 10% on list price, 20% on response time or cost per correct answer.
Choose Claude Fable 5.2 when
- the work is coding: it leads the Coding board by 3 points in the last 24 hours (93 ± 1.5 against 90 ± 0.2)
- the work is reasoning: it leads the Reasoning board by 8 points in the last 24 hours (100 ± 2.5 against 92 ± 2.5)
Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash when
- price per token matters: it lists at $0.30 in / $1.20 out per 1M tokens against $8 in / $40 out
- cost per correct answer matters: about $0.92 per 1,000 correct coding answers against $26.66 over the last 30 days
- response time matters: a median of 9.3 s on the coding tasks against 19 s over the last 30 days
09
Can I route between Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash automatically?
One OpenAI-compatible endpoint sends each request to whichever model the boards favour for that kind of work, with your own provider keys.
Yes. The Smart Router is one OpenAI-compatible endpoint with 14 auto-* routing modes: a quality mode such as auto-coding sends each request to the model placing highest on that board, the value modes pick within 5 points of the best and then the cheapest measured cost per run, and auto-split sends traffic by weights you set. Routing is drift-aware by default, uses your own provider keys and adds zero markup on tokens. Free includes 1,000 routed requests a month.
Every mode is described in the router documentation.
1,000 routed requests a month free · your own provider keys · no card
10
How we test Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Every model on the board runs the same tasks on the same schedule: coding every four hours, reasoning and tool use daily, with an hourly canary probe.
Scores come from our own runs through each provider’s public API, not vendor-reported numbers. Every model gets the same prompts and output budget, and the same sampling settings wherever a provider accepts them, and is graded by executing what it produces. Every score carries a standard error from its own run-to-run repeatability; models whose lead is inside that noise share a place, written joint.
The methodology is public — every weight, statistical test and drift constant. The test tasks are private, so no lab can train on them. The full method, weights and constants are on the methodology page.
11
Claude Fable 5.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: questions people ask
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 93 ± 1.5 — joint 10th of the 26 models on the Coding board in the last 24 hours. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 90 ± 0.2 — joint 24th of the 26 models on the Coding board in the last 24 hours. The gap of 3 points is beyond the measurement noise, so Claude Fable 5.2 leads on coding. Over the last 30 days, Claude Fable 5.2 passed 80% of its coding attempts and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 80%.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for reasoning?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 100 ± 2.5 — joint 1st of the 26 models on the Reasoning board in the last 24 hours. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 92 ± 2.5 — joint 21st of the 26 models on the Reasoning board in the last 24 hours. The gap of 8 points is beyond the measurement noise, so Claude Fable 5.2 leads on reasoning.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for agents and tool calling?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 87 ± 2.5 — joint 1st of the 26 models on the Tool use board in the last 24 hours. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 85 ± 2.5 — joint 24th of the 26 models on the Tool use board in the last 24 hours. The gap of 2 points is within the measurement noise, so head to head the two are a statistical tie on tool use; the board places them apart because a place is set against the leader of the group above, not against the other model.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2 lists at $8 in / $40 out per 1M tokens; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash at $0.30 in / $1.20 out. On a 40/60 input–output blend, Claude Fable 5.2 costs about 32× as much per token as DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. Over the last 30 days, 1,000 correct coding answers cost about $26.66 with Claude Fable 5.2 and $0.92 with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, every attempt billed, failed ones included.
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Median response time on the coding tasks over the last 30 days: Claude Fable 5.2 19 s, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 9.3 s. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash answers about 2× faster. On the reasoning sessions 1.3 min against 1.0 min and on the tool-use sessions 1.2 min against 1.6 min (Claude Fable 5.2 first).
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash getting worse?
Claude Fable 5.2 is holding steady on the 24-hour board. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is holding steady on the 24-hour board; no Page-Hinkley detection on coding, reasoning or tool use. Page-Hinkley change-point detection (a CUSUM-family test) runs per suite on each model’s daily median, with every constant published; a real shift is confirmed over days, not hours. An hourly canary of two fixed coding probes catches sharp drops.
Should I use Claude Fable 5.2 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2 leads on coding and reasoning; tool use is a statistical tie; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper per million tokens. Choose Claude Fable 5.2 when the work is coding: it leads the Coding board by 3 points in the last 24 hours (93 ± 1.5 against 90 ± 0.2); the work is reasoning: it leads the Reasoning board by 8 points in the last 24 hours (100 ± 2.5 against 92 ± 2.5). Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash when price per token matters: it lists at $0.30 in / $1.20 out per 1M tokens against $8 in / $40 out; cost per correct answer matters: about $0.92 per 1,000 correct coding answers against $26.66 over the last 30 days; response time matters: a median of 9.3 s on the coding tasks against 19 s over the last 30 days.
Can I route between Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash automatically?
Yes. The Smart Router is one OpenAI-compatible endpoint with 14 auto-* routing modes: a quality mode such as auto-coding sends each request to the model placing highest on that board, the value modes pick within 5 points of the best and then the cheapest measured cost per run, and auto-split sends traffic by weights you set. Routing is drift-aware by default, uses your own provider keys and adds zero markup on tokens. Free includes 1,000 routed requests a month.
Route between them automatically
The Smart Router sends each request to whichever of Claude Fable 5.2 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — or any model on the board — the boards favour for that kind of work, with your own provider keys and zero markup on tokens.
1,000 routed requests a month free · your own provider keys · no card
Free account · 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days · no card
Already have an account? Log in