Can Claude Fable 5.1 make consulting-grade slides? We tested it on 3 decks

The world of slide creation is changing fast with the introduction of AI slide generation tools. On September 1, 2026, Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.1, which it describes as its most advanced model for coding and knowledge work. AI platform for finance, Hebbia, said Fable 5.1 "produced the best decks of any model we've tested."
With all this high praise, we were of course curious to see if it makes better consulting slides than its predecessors, Fable 5 and Opus 5.
 

In this article, we test Fable 5.1 on three different tasks: creating a deck from a prompt, turning a text report into a deck, and improving an existing deck. We score every output against nine criteria for consulting-grade decks and explain where and why the outputs fall short. Finally, we share tips for getting better decks out of Fable 5.1.

What makes a consulting-grade deck? Our 9 criteria

Before we start testing, we need to define what a "good" deck is. Our area of expertise is creating consulting-style decks like the ones top-tier firms such as McKinsey, BCG and Bain produce. 
A consulting-grade deck states one clear message per slide, backs every message with evidence, and follows a storyline a client can read without a presenter. These decks are typically information-dense, heavy on charts and self-contained enough to be left behind as reports for clients.
 

To measure the output of Fable 5.1, we rated each deck against these nine questions:

1. Layout: Does the layout of each slide effectively communicate the key message?
2. Clarity: Does each slide only contain information that is relevant to its main message?
3. Action titles: Do the slides have good action titles? An action title is a full-sentence slide title that states the slide's takeaway, for example "Local supply capacity fell far short of FY22 demand" rather than "Supply capacity" (see how to write action titles like McKinsey).
4. Tone: Is the level and tone of the text consulting-like?
5. Visual balance: Is the entire deck visually balanced?
6. Storyline: Does the deck follow a structure that mirrors how a consultant would structure it?
7. Coherence: Are the messages and numbers consistent throughout?
8. Client-readiness: Could the deck go to a client as it is?
9. MBB look and feel: Do the slides look and feel like McKinsey or BCG slides overall?

We rated each criterion Yes, Partially or No.

How we tested Claude Fable 5.1

We ran three tests in the Claude desktop app in September 2026, using Fable 5.1 on the Medium effort setting.

Test A: Can Fable 5.1 create a consulting deck from a simple prompt?

For the first test, we wanted to see what Fable 5.1 produces from a completely raw starting point. We used the following prompt:

Create a project kickoff deck for our new strategy project

Fable 5.1 started by asking clarifying questions: who the client is, who the audience for the deck is, how long it should be, and whether there are details on timeline, team or format. We asked it to keep the deck general with placeholders and to use the recommended length.

Test A result: A well-structured deck without consulting-level detail

Fable 5.1 returned a 14-slide kickoff deck with a logical storyline and clean, balanced layouts. It had no action titles and far too little detail to pass as a consulting deck.
 

Score: 5 Yes, 0 Partially, 4 No.

Test B: Can Fable 5.1 turn a PDF report into a consulting deck?

Second, we gave Fable 5.1 a 37-page PDF report, Electric Two-Wheeler Supply Chain Landscape in India, written by Monitor Deloitte for the Society of Manufacturers of Electric Vehicles (SMEV) in 2023. We asked it to simply turn the report into a deck.

Before building the deck, Fable 5.1 asked how comprehensive the deck should be and who it was intended for. We chose the recommended 10 slide option and an internal audience.

Test B result: A faithful summary of the report, not a consulting storyline

Fable 5.1 picked sensible layouts for list-type content, used charts for numerical content and kept the numbers consistent with the report. It followed the report page by page instead of building a storyline, added information that did not support each slide's message, and wrote descriptive rather than insight-driven text. 

Score: 1 Yes, 3 Partially, 5 No.

Below are some specific examples showing the patterns:

Test C: Can Fable 5.1 improve an existing PowerPoint deck?

For our last test, we gave Fable 5.1 a PowerPoint deck with a made-up business case and asked it to make the deck better.

As in the other tests, the model asked clarifying questions: which content the improved deck should carry, and how far the redesign should go. It recommended keeping the example business case and doing a full redesign as a new .pptx file.

Test C result: A tidier deck that is still sparse and not consulting-grade

Fable 5.1 kept a rough consulting structure, consistent numbers and only relevant content on each slide. The slides stayed sparse, the action titles improved only partly, and the text did not read like a consulting deck. 

Score: 3 Yes, 3 Partially, 3 No.

Verdict: How good is Claude Fable 5.1 at consulting slides?

Fable 5.1 is a capable slide tool that creates excellent first drafts of decks, but it is still far from actual consulting slides.

Here, we sum up the results:

Three patterns stand out from our Fable 5.1 test:

• Fable 5.1 gets the basics right: It asks clarifying questions before building, keeps numbers consistent, and produces balanced, readable layouts.
   
• Fable 5.1 does not write or design like a consultant: Slide text and layout design failed our consulting tone test in all three decks. The tone describes rather than states a point of view, action titles were missing or partial throughout, and the layouts themselves were too light and generic for consulting-grade slides.
   
• Fable 5.1 structures better from a blank page than from a source document: The prompt-only deck had the most consultant-like storyline. The report deck followed the report's order instead of building an argument (see our guide to the pyramid principle for how consultants order a storyline).

How to get better consulting slides from Fable 5.1

Fable 5.1 is far better than previous models and with a few tweaks the output starts to come closer to real consulting decks. To get the results from okay to good, here are our best tips.

1. Ask explicitly for consulting-level detail and complexity

Fable 5.1 defaults to light, generic slides. If you explictly ask it to create decks that have the level of detail and complexity you'd expect from a McKinsey or BCG deck, it immediately produces better results.

2. Give it good references

Fable 5.1 imitates the density and structure of what you show it. Give it some good references that have visual diversity and match the level of detail that you'd like to get a better outcome.

3. Ask it to build on your master

Upload your company's PowerPoint template and ask Fable 5.1 to build on that slide master. The output then uses your fonts, colors and layouts, and you spend much less time reformatting.

Conclusion

Claude Fable 5.1 is a step change from previous models. It builds decks with a logical structure, consistent numbers and sensible and visual diverse layouts, and it asks the right questions before it starts.

That being said, it still needs massaging and prodding before the output is client-ready. Across our three tests, it produced no client-ready deck, no consistent action titles and no consulting-grade text. Treat Fable 5.1 as a fast first draft: plan to rewrite the action titles, tighten the storyline and add the call-outs and annotations that make a slide consulting-grade.