Home › Compare › GPT-5.6 Terra vs Claude Fable 5.1
GPT-5.6 Terra vs Claude Fable 5.1
A straight cost comparison of GPT-5.6 Terra (OpenAI) and Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic), per 1,000,000 tokens, verified October 2026.
Rate-by-rate comparison
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Terra | Claude Fable 5.1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M | $2 | $10 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.20 | $0.25 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Cache write / 1M | $2.50 | $12.50 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Output / 1M | $12 | $50 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Context window | 1,050,000 | 1,000,000 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Batch API | Yes | Yes | Tie |
| Long-context tier | > 272,000 | None | — |
For per-token metrics, the lower number wins. For context window and batch support, the higher or broader option wins. A dash means the provider does not publish that rate: a missing cache-write fee means writes are not billed per token, while a missing cached-input rate means cache hits bill at the full input rate.
Blended cost: 1M input + 250K output
| Model | Blended cost | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Terra | $5 | Cheaper |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | $22.50 | +$17.50 |
Ten workloads, two bills
The same two models, priced across ten workloads that differ only in their input:output ratio. Nothing else changes — no retries, no system prompt, no middleware.
| Workload | GPT-5.6 Terra | Claude Fable 5.1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification 100K reqs · 500 in / 10 out | $112 | $550 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Data extraction 10K reqs · 2K in / 200 out | $64 | $300 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Support chat 1K reqs · 4K in / 600 out | $15.20 | $70 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Code review 2K reqs · 8K in / 1.5K out | $68 | $310 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Summarisation 1K reqs · 20K in / 1K out | $52 | $250 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Agent loop 5K reqs · 12K in / 2K out | $240 | $1,100 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Translation 500 reqs · 15K in / 15K out | $105 | $450 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Long-document QA 200 reqs · 120K in / 800 out | $49.92 | $248 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Cached RAG 1K reqs · 50K in (45K cached) / 1K out | $31.10 | $112 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| Nightly batch 10K reqs · 10K in / 2K out | $220 | $1,000 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
GPT-5.6 Terra wins 10 of 10, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 0 of 10. The winner is set by the token mix, not by the headline rate.
Where the two bills cross over
GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper on both sides of the mix: $2 vs $10 per million input tokens, and $12 vs $50 per million output. No input:output ratio reverses that, so on price alone the other model never becomes the better choice — it has to win on context, latency or output quality.
Cost at four scales
The same support-chat workload (4K input, 600 output per request) at four monthly volumes.
| Requests / month | GPT-5.6 Terra | Claude Fable 5.1 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | $1.52 | $7 | GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper by $5.48 |
| 1,000 | $15.20 | $70 | GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper by $54.80 |
| 10,000 | $152 | $700 | GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper by $548 |
| 100,000 | $1,520 | $7,000 | GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper by $5,480 |
What caching does to each bill
Caching only helps the part of the prompt that repeats. This is the support-chat workload (1,000 requests, 4,000 input tokens each) with an increasing share of that prompt served from a warm cache, written once on the first request.
| Cached share of the prompt | GPT-5.6 Terra | Claude Fable 5.1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | $15.20 | $70 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| 50% | $11.60 | $50.52 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| 80% | $9.45 | $38.84 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
| 95% | $8.37 | $33 | GPT-5.6 Terra |
Both models publish a cached-read rate, so the discount is comparable: GPT-5.6 Terra reads cache at $0.20 per million, Claude Fable 5.1 at $0.25.
Which one should you pick?
GPT-5.6 Terra wins on classification, data extraction, support chat, code review, summarisation, agent loop, translation, long-document qa, cached rag, nightly batch, while Claude Fable 5.1 wins on none of the ten workloads above.
Beyond price, the two differ on input rate ($2 vs $10); output rate ($12 vs $50); cached-input rate ($0.20 vs $0.25); cache-write rate ($2.50 vs $12.50); context window (1,050,000 vs 1,000,000); long-context tier (yes, above 272,000 vs none).
Batch mode is available on GPT-5.6 Terra and Claude Fable 5.1, which halves the nightly job. Both publish cached-input discounts, so a stable system prompt is worth caching on either.
FAQ
Is GPT-5.6 Terra cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1?
On a blended 1M-input-plus-250K-output workload, GPT-5.6 Terra is cheaper by 78% ($5 vs $22.50). The gap changes for cache-heavy prompts and for batch jobs, as the workload table shows.
Which handles longer prompts, GPT-5.6 Terra or Claude Fable 5.1?
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger context window (1,050,000 vs 1,000,000 tokens). Watch the long-context threshold on GPT-5.6 Terra: rates rise once input passes it.
Do both models support prompt caching?
GPT-5.6 Terra bills cached reads at $0.20 per 1M; Claude Fable 5.1 at $0.25.
Related comparisons
- GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra
- GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-5.2
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5
- All OpenAI pricing
- All Anthropic pricing