Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mistral Large 4
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Mistral Large 4 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 Mistral Large 4 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 Mistral Large 4 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 38.9%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#12 of 61) against 68.5% (#36 of 61) for Mistral Large 4.
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.035 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 8.8s per sample).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mistral Large 4 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.1 | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Mistral |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 1.05T total, 49B active |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $0.680 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $2.09 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Phrase Grounding | Not listed | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 81.3% | 68.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.035 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.28s | 8.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0 | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 65.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3 | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 |
| Counting (low) | 69.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6 | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0 | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0 | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 94.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4 | 92.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.8 to 93.3 |
| OCR (high) | 93.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9 | 87.1% ±4.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.6 to 90.4 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5 | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5 | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 |
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Mistral Large 4: 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.
Mistral Large 4, nicknamed Le Chonk, is a natively multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Mistral that accepts interleaved text and image input and produces text output. It uses a granular MoE design with roughly 1.05 trillion total parameters and 49 billion active per token, reported as 52 billion when embeddings and output layers are counted, paired with a 1.6 billion parameter vision encoder and a context window of one million tokens. The model is trained from scratch on about 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's European data centers and supports more than 160 languages. It behaves as a hybrid instruct and reasoning system, with a reasoning effort setting that selects between direct answers and longer deliberation, alongside function calling and structured output for agentic workflows.
Image understanding is a focus of this generation, covering documents, charts, technical drawings and natural scenes, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for visual grounding queries. Reported grounding results include 42 percent on Dense200 and 73 percent on the DIOR-RSVG remote sensing benchmark. Mistral describes agentic vision workflows in which the model zooms into gigapixel satellite imagery or engineering drawings to verify details, and reports coding results such as 62 percent on DeepSWE. Figures published at preview time are preliminary because the reinforcement learning phase is still in progress.
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% (#12 of 61) against 68.5% (#36 of 61) for Mistral Large 4. 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 38.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.035. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.68 per 1M input tokens and $2.09 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Fable 5.1 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s per inference against 8.8s. 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.