claude-fable-5-1 vs claude-opus-5-5
claude-fable-5-1 vs claude-opus-5-5: $10/$50 vs $4/$20 per 1M, the same workload priced on both; claude-opus-5-5 is 60% cheaper per request.
| claude-fable-5-1 | claude-opus-5-5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider · tier | anthropic · frontier | anthropic · frontier |
| Input | $10 | $4 |
| Cached input | $0.25 | $0.2 |
| Cache write | $12.5 | $5 |
| Output | $50 | $20 |
| Long-context tier | none | none |
| Per request (2,000 in / 300 out) | $0.035 | $0.014 |
| Per month at 100k requests | $3,500 | $1,400 |
| …with the static prefix cached | $2,038 | $830 |
| Cheaper sibling (cascade) | claude-opus-5-5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
Through TokenZero
Point your SDK at the gateway and keep both keys; the cache formatter, response cache and advisory routing act on every request, and each one comes back with a signed receipt showing the list-price baseline, actual cost and the saving.
OPENAI_BASE_URL=https://tokenzero.sh/w/<key>/v1 ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL=https://tokenzero.sh/w/<key>
Questions
Which is cheaper, claude-fable-5-1 or claude-opus-5-5?
At list prices (table 2026-10-26) claude-opus-5-5 is 60% cheaper per request on a 2,000-in / 300-out workload. Quality is a separate question: TokenZero's cascade only routes to a sibling it scores as sufficient and measures parity with shadow evaluation.
Where do these prices come from?
The providers' own pricing pages, re-verified on 2026-10-26; the gateway signs receipts with the same table.