Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Grok 4.6 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 Grok 4.6 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6 on Vision Evals
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 61.4% to 20.2%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 69.5% (#20 of 36) for Grok 4.6.
Grok 4.6 is both cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.035 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 8.3s per sample).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.1 | Grok 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | SpaceXAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 500K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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% | 69.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.035 | $0.0069 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.28s | 7.39s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0 | 20.2% |
| Object Detection (high) | 65.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3 | – |
| Counting (low) | 69.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6 | 70.3% |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0 | – |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 87.5% |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0 | – |
| OCR (low) | 94.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4 | 92.0% |
| OCR (high) | 93.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 85.6% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5 | 61.6% |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5 | 61.6% |
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6: Overview
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.
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.
xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 69.5% (#20 of 36) for Grok 4.6. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 61.4% against 20.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Grok 4.6 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0069 per sample against $0.035. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Grok 4.6 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s 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.