Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 on Vision Evals

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 74.3% to 61.4%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 77.6% (#10 of 63) for Claude Sonnet 5.5.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0073 vs $0.039 per sample) and faster (8.3s vs 8.3s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Claude Sonnet 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$2.00
Output $/1M$50.00$10.00
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%
77.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.039$0.0073
Avg speed / sample8.35s8.33s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
Object Detection (high)
65.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3
$0.078
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
Counting (low)
69.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6
$0.019
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
Counting (high)
73.0%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0
$0.023
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.013
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
OCR (low)
72.9%
$0.039
66.3%
$0.0075
by category
Single value
64.3%
Transcription
84.7%
Structured JSON
89.2%
Text localization
46.5%
Single value
48.7%
Transcription
76.3%
Structured JSON
83.8%
Text localization
60.6%
OCR (high)
75.3%
$0.051
–
by category
Single value
69.1%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
43.4%
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 77.6% (#10 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 74.3% against 61.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0073 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 Sonnet 5.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s 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.