Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, OCR, Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and Classification.

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5 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 Fable 5.1
Run to compare this model.
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5 on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 74.5% to 61.4%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 82.0% (#3 of 63) for Claude Opus 5.5.

Claude Opus 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.015 vs $0.039 per sample) and faster (7.6s vs 8.3s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 16, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5.5
OrganizationAnthropicAnthropic
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$4.00
Output $/1M$50.00$20.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
74.7%
82.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.039$0.015
Avg speed / sample8.35s7.63s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
Object Detection (high)
65.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3
$0.078
76.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0
$0.030
Counting (low)
69.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6
$0.019
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
Counting (high)
73.0%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0
$0.023
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.013
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
OCR (low)
72.9%
$0.039
78.3%
$0.016
by category
Single value
64.3%
Transcription
84.7%
Structured JSON
89.2%
Text localization
46.5%
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
OCR (high)
75.3%
$0.051
79.9%
$0.023
by category
Single value
69.1%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
43.4%
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5: Overview

Claude Fable 5.1

Claude Fable 5.1 is a proprietary multimodal model from Anthropic in the Mythos-class tier of the Claude 5 family, positioned above Claude Opus for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work. It accepts text and images as input and returns text, with a one million token context window and a maximum output of 128 thousand tokens. Adaptive thinking is always on, and an effort parameter controls how much reasoning the model applies to a given request. Anthropic reports a reliable knowledge and training data cutoff of June 2026. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 share the same underlying model; the difference between them is the set of safety classifiers applied to dual-use cybersecurity and biology requests.

On the vision side, Anthropic documents improvements in reading dense charts, financial filings, and tables nested inside PDF documents, which extends the model toward document understanding, chart question answering, and spreadsheet and slide work. Reported evaluations cover agentic scientific research on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, agentic coding on Terminal-Bench 4.0, computer use on OSWorld 2.0, and multidisciplinary reasoning on Humanity's Last Exam. Model weights are not published.

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#3 of 63) against 74.7% (#14 of 63) for Claude Fable 5.1. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 74.5% against 61.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.015 per sample against $0.039. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 8.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.