OpenAI compatible API · Attested · Public status

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.1: compare current API pricing, context, provider routes, privacy, p50 latency, and OpenAI-compatible access.

Verify gateway

Onebase URL to migrate

100sof models and routes

0prompt or output logs. Always.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Z.ai: GLM 5.1 has the lower cheapest prompt+completion route on TrustedRouter. Z.ai: GLM 5.1 has more provider fallback routes, while Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger context window. Current TrustedRouter probes show Z.ai: GLM 5.1 with the lower p50 TTFT.

$63.3/1MAnthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 cheapest route

$4.2833/1MZ.ai: GLM 5.1 cheapest route

4880 msAnthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 fastest measured p50 TTFT via anthropic

1938 msZ.ai: GLM 5.1 fastest measured p50 TTFT via telnyx

Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1Z.ai: GLM 5.1

Model idanthropic/claude-fable-5.1z-ai/glm-5.1

Publisher Anthropic Z.AI

AI IQ IQ 137#3 IQ 114#43

Context1,000,000 tokens200,000 tokens

Credits provider routes115

Cheapest route$63.3/1M$4.2833/1M

Cached input$0.26375/1M$0.10339/1M to $0.643403/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas provider E2EE route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT4880 ms via anthropic1938 ms via telnyx

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime range100.00%0.00% to 100.00%

Modes chat messages chat

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Z.ai: GLM 5.1 routes

Overview15 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
BenchmarksTrustedRouter and external sources
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Z.ai: GLM 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.246 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K3 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.138 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.137 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.337 combined provider routes
Z.ai: GLM 5.1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash35 combined provider routes
MoonshotAI: Kimi K2.6 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.134 combined provider routes
OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b vs Z.ai: GLM 5.134 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Z.ai: GLM 5.133 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="anthropic/claude-fable-5.1",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 or Z.ai: GLM 5.1?

Is Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 or Z.ai: GLM 5.1 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $63.3/1M for Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 and $4.2833/1M for Z.ai: GLM 5.1. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 or Z.ai: GLM 5.1 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 4880 ms for Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 and 1938 ms for Z.ai: GLM 5.1. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 and Z.ai: GLM 5.1 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between anthropic/claude-fable-5.1 and z-ai/glm-5.1. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.