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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 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 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
| Property | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Fable 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $10.00 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $50.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| 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 Time | 7.09s | 16.44s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.0K | |
| Median output tokens | 140 | |
| 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