Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Sol side-by-side.

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol live

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

These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.

Models in this comparison

OpenAI

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol on Vision Evals

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 93.1% to 80.4%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#9 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol.

GPT-6 Sol is both cheaper ($0.0065 vs $0.035 per sample) and faster (8.1s vs 8.3s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1GPT-6 Sol

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1GPT-6 Sol
OrganizationAnthropicOpenAI
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.1M
Parametersundisclosed
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00
Output $/1M$50.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
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%
80.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.035$0.0065
Avg speed / sample8.28s8.15s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
73.6%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.9 to 74.2
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
65.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3
$0.078
75.2%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.1 to 75.9
$0.022
Counting (low)
69.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6
$0.019
74.8%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 77.0
$0.0039
Counting (high)
73.0%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0
$0.023
76.1%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 78.4
$0.0071
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
$0.0027
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
OCR (low)
94.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4
$0.039
91.7%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.3 to 92.1
$0.0070
OCR (high)
93.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9
$0.039
91.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.6 to 92.2
$0.019
Data Extraction (low)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
80.4%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 80.4
$0.0031
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0045
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
72.2%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 74.2
$0.0039
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
77.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 80.8
$0.0069

Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol: 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.

GPT-6 Sol

GPT-6 Sol is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from OpenAI, released on September 22, 2026 alongside GPT-6 Luna as an efficiency-oriented tier of the GPT-6 family that began with GPT-6 Astra. OpenAI states that Sol and Luna are trained with methods similar to those used for Astra, carrying the same work on professional tasks, factuality, coding, computer use, and alignment into models that run faster. Sol accepts text and image input and returns text output, and OpenAI documents a context window of roughly one million tokens together with a knowledge cutoff of April 20, 2026.

The model targets complex coding and agentic workflows and exposes a configurable reasoning effort setting with levels of none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max, which trades latency and token consumption against answer quality. OpenAI reports results including 33.2% on AutomationBench at xhigh effort and 56.4% on Agents' Last Exam at max effort, while its reported DeepSWE and OSWorld 2.0 figures of 68.8% and 64.4% fall below those of the earlier GPT-5.6 Sol. Its vision behavior covers image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, captioning, document and chart interpretation, and text recognition.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#9 of 57) against 80.7% (#10 of 57) for GPT-6 Sol. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 93.1% against 80.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

GPT-6 Sol is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0065 per sample against $0.035. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.1s per inference against 8.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.