Claude Fable 5.1 (max) vs Grok 4.6
Head-to-head on the Towards AI writing benchmark: same 10 real YouTube scripts, five runs each, scored blind by a three-family judge panel. Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads overall, 89.7 to 86.6.
The verdict
Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) has the stronger current result: #1 at 2289.7 Elo and 89.71 overall, compared with Grok 4.6 at #30, 2004.1 Elo, and 86.61 overall. Their 95% Elo confidence intervals do not overlap, which supports the directional ordering (2229.00–2346.50 and 1951.50–2050.00). Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) has its clearest metric edges in Hook Strength (90.21 versus 80.81) and Length Adherence (94.83 versus 88.03). Grok 4.6 counters on Visual Cue Quality (86.63 versus 85.53). At the measured run mix, Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) costs $3.153 per article versus $0.204 for Grok 4.6; Grok 4.6 is the cheaper route. Both are closed-weight routes. On the current automated evidence, Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) is the stronger default; Grok 4.6 remains a defensible choice when its specific strengths, price, or deployment profile matter more than the headline rank.
Pick Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) when you prioritize the stronger current board result, hook strength, and length adherence.
Pick Grok 4.6 when you prioritize visual cue quality, and lower measured cost.
Metric by metric
Blue bars: Claude Fable 5.1 (max). Orange bars: Grok 4.6. Same 0–100 scale; the bold bar wins that metric.
Everything else that differs
| Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 89.7 | 86.6 |
| Writing Elo | 2290 | 2004 |
| Run-to-run spread (± overall std) | 3.870 | 2.530 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 3.153 | 0.204 |
| Avg latency (s) | 622.5 | 243.1 |
| Open weights | No | No |
Full scorecards: Claude Fable 5.1 (max) · Grok 4.6. How scoring works: methodology.
← All comparisons