Claude Fable 5 vs Llama 4 Scout
A side-by-side comparison of two multimodal models — real specs, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and a clear verdict on which to choose. Kept current by our agents.
Quick verdict: which should you choose?
Choose Claude Fable 5 if you need
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need the lowest output cost at scale.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need the fastest generation speed.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need a 10-million-token context window.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need an open-weight model for customization.
Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need
- ✓Choose Claude Fable 5 if you need the highest intelligence index.
- ✓Choose Claude Fable 5 if you need safety-aligned and coherent long-context responses.
- ✓Choose Claude Fable 5 if you need detailed file-based multimodal reasoning.
- ✓Choose Claude Fable 5 if you need strong integration of text and visual inputs under proprietary controls.
Verdict
Claude Fable 5 leads decisively on intelligence (64.9 vs 13.5) and offers stronger safety-aligned, detailed reasoning, while Llama 4 Scout dominates on speed (112.48 t/s vs 63.29 t/s), price ($0.3 vs $50 per 1M tokens), and context size (10M vs 1M tokens). Llama 4 Scout is the practical choice for high-volume or long-sequence workloads; Claude Fable 5 suits users prioritizing capability and coherence over cost or throughput.
Claude Fable 5 vs Llama 4 Scout: side by side
| Spec | Claude Fable 5 | Llama 4 Scout | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 64.9 | 13.5 | Claude Fable 5 |
| Output speed | 63 t/s | 112 t/s | Llama 4 Scout |
| Output price | $50.00/1M | $0.30/1M | Llama 4 Scout |
| Context | 1000K | 10000K | Llama 4 Scout |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Type | Proprietary | Open-weight | Tie |
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta | Tie |
Detailed analysis
Intelligence
Winner: Claude Fable 5Claude Fable 5 scores 64.9 on the intelligence index compared with Llama 4 Scout's 13.5. This gap indicates substantially stronger reasoning capability on the provided metrics.
Speed & Cost
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout delivers 112.48 tokens per second at $0.3 per million tokens, versus Claude Fable 5's 63.29 t/s at $50 per million. The combination favors Llama 4 Scout for high-volume or latency-sensitive use.
Context Window
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout provides a 10-million-token context while Claude Fable 5 is limited to 1 million tokens. Llama 4 Scout therefore supports longer sequences natively.
Access & Alignment
Winner: Claude Fable 5Claude Fable 5 is proprietary and emphasizes safety-aligned responses, whereas Llama 4 Scout is open-weight. Users needing governed behavior may prefer the former.
Claude Fable 5
Pros
- +Coherent handling of very large contexts
- +Strong integration of text and visual inputs
- +Safety-aligned responses
- +Detailed file-based reasoning
Cons
- –May decline edge-case or sensitive requests
- –Slower inference on maximum context lengths
- –No native audio or video support
Llama 4 Scout
Pros
- +Extremely large context window
- +Native multimodal input support
- +Strong reasoning over long inputs
Cons
- –High compute cost at maximum context
- –Limited to text and image modalities only
- –May exhibit latency on very long sequences
Summary: Claude Fable 5 vs Llama 4 Scout
Select Llama 4 Scout when speed, cost, and maximum context length are primary constraints. Select Claude Fable 5 when raw intelligence and safety-aligned multimodal reasoning outweigh those factors. The data show a clear capability-versus-efficiency trade-off between the two models.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5 scores far higher on intelligence while Llama 4 Scout wins on speed, price, and context size; the better choice depends on whether capability or efficiency matters more.