Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Fable 5

Compare Claude Opus 4.1 and Claude Fable 5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, OCR, and Image Captioning.

Compare Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Fable 5 live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1
Run to compare this model.
AnthropicClaude Fable 5

Claude Fable 5 can't be run right now. See its model page for details.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Fable 5: Overview

Claude Opus 4.1

Claude 4.1 Opus, released by Anthropic in August 2025, is the upgraded flagship of the Claude 4 family, building on Opus 4 with stronger reasoning and agentic capabilities. Like its predecessor, it is multimodal and optimized for text, code, and tool use, with support for large context windows suited to multi-file codebases, technical workflows, and long-horizon problem solving.

On benchmarks, Opus 4.1 improves coding performance, reaching ~74.5% on SWE-Bench Verified compared to Opus 4’s ~72.5%. It demonstrates more precise debugging, refactoring, and orchestration of agentic tasks while maintaining similar safety and alignment safeguards. It is best suited for enterprise-scale software development, research automation, and advanced reasoning workflows where reliability and depth of analysis are critical.

Claude Fable 5

Claude Fable 5 is Anthropic's first generally available Mythos-class large language model, released on June 9, 2026. It is built for long-horizon, asynchronous, and agentic tasks that prior Claude generations could not sustain, including multi-day autonomous coding sessions, complex knowledge work, and document-heavy analysis. The model supports a 1 million token context window with up to 128,000 output tokens per request and uses adaptive thinking as its sole reasoning mode, where the effort level is adjustable but raw chain-of-thought is never returned. Vision capabilities allow the model to parse diagrams, charts, and tables embedded in files and PDFs, and to use visual feedback to evaluate its own coding outputs against design goals. On benchmarks such as SWE-Bench Pro, the model scores 80.3% compared to 69.2% for Claude Opus 4.8, and it leads on CursorBench 3.1 for autonomous coding workflows.

Claude Fable 5 shares the same underlying model weights as Claude Mythos 5, but is deployed with safety classifiers that automatically reroute queries in high-risk domains — including cybersecurity, biology, and chemistry — to Claude Opus 4.8. These classifiers trigger in fewer than 5% of sessions on average. As a designated Covered Model, all traffic is subject to mandatory 30-day data retention to support safety monitoring. The model is available via the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Vertex AI, and Microsoft Foundry. Anthropic has not publicly disclosed parameter count, architecture details, or training data composition for this model.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Fable 5 Comparison Table

PropertyClaude Opus 4.1Claude Fable 5
OrganizationAnthropicAnthropic
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2025Jun 2026
Context Window200K1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$15.00$10.00
Output $/1M$75.00$50.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
ClassificationDemo
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Chart Question Answering
Document Question Answering
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
59.7%
74.63%
Avg Response Time7.09s16.44s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2.0K
Median output tokens140
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.040
Defect Detection
73.3%(11/15)
73.3%(11/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
77.8%(7/9)
Object Counting
0%(0/10)
30%(3/10)
Object Understanding
64.3%(9/14)
100%(14/14)
Spatial Understanding
63.2%(12/19)
78.9%(15/19)

Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology