Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5V Turbo

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and GLM 5V Turbo 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 GLM 5V Turbo 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.
Z.aiGLM 5V Turbo
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5V Turbo on Vision Evals

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 72.0% to 31.8%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 65.3% (#28 of 36) for GLM 5V Turbo.

GLM 5V Turbo is both cheaper ($0.0031 vs $0.035 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 8.3s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1GLM 5V Turbo

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5V Turbo Comparison Table

Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1GLM 5V Turbo
OrganizationAnthropicZ.ai
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M200K
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$1.20
Output $/1M$50.00$4.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
81.3%
65.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.035$0.0031
Avg speed / sample8.28s6.35s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
56.5%
$0.0052
Object Detection (high)
65.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3
$0.078
Counting (low)
69.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6
$0.019
48.6%
$0.0017
Counting (high)
73.0%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0
$0.023
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.013
84.4%
$0.0015
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
OCR (low)
94.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4
$0.039
89.3%
$0.0030
OCR (high)
93.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9
$0.039
Data Extraction (low)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
81.4%
$0.0018
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
31.8%
$0.0017
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
49.7%
$0.0069

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5V Turbo: 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.

GLM 5V Turbo

GLM-5V-Turbo is a native multimodal model from Z.ai that extends the GLM family with joint image, video, and text input aimed at vision-centered coding and agent workflows. The model reads screenshots, design drafts, document layouts, and interface captures and generates runnable code from them, covering tasks such as turning a visual design into a working front end, diagnosing rendering and layout defects from screen captures, and operating graphical user interfaces during long-horizon agent runs. It accepts roughly 200,000 input tokens and can emit up to 131,072 output tokens in a single response, which supports sessions that hold specifications, source files, logs, and visual references at the same time.

Training includes a joint reinforcement learning stage spanning more than 30 tasks simultaneously, an approach Z.ai describes as a way to counter the trade-off in which improving visual recognition degrades programming ability and the reverse. Reported evaluations cover pure-text coding on the backend, frontend, and repository exploration tracks of CC-Bench-V2, together with agent execution suites such as PinchBench, ClawEval, and ZClawBench, indicating that text coding behavior is retained after visual input is added.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 65.3% (#28 of 36) for GLM 5V Turbo. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 72.0% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GLM 5V Turbo is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0031 per sample against $0.035. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GLM 5V Turbo is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s 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.