Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Glimmer 30B 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 Muse Glimmer 30B 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.
MetaMuse Glimmer 30B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 61.4% to 41.0%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 61.4% (#34 of 63) for Muse Glimmer 30B.

Muse Glimmer 30B is cheaper ($0.0013 vs $0.039 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 10.6s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer 30B

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 25, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Muse Glimmer 30B
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M131K
ParametersUnknown29.6B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$0.300
Output $/1M$50.00$1.20
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%
61.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.039$0.0013
Avg speed / sample8.35s10.60s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
41.0%
$0.0017
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
66.2%
$0.0007
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
81.3%
$0.0005
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
–
OCR (low)
72.9%
$0.039
60.7%
$0.0013
by category
Single value
64.3%
Transcription
84.7%
Structured JSON
89.2%
Text localization
46.5%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
82.9%
Structured JSON
80.2%
Text localization
14.8%
OCR (high)
75.3%
$0.051
60.1%
$0.0033
by category
Single value
69.1%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
43.4%
Single value
54.4%
Transcription
78.4%
Structured JSON
80.0%
Text localization
13.7%
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
57.6%
$0.0009
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
62.9%
$0.0026

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B: 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.

Muse Glimmer 30B

Muse Glimmer 30B is a dense vision language model from Meta built for long-horizon agentic work on local hardware. The architecture pairs a 52-layer causal text decoder with a roughly 1.8B parameter ViT-G/14 perception encoder for about 29.6 billion parameters in total, and it accepts interleaved text and image input so an agent can interpret screenshots, charts, and documents alongside conversation. The decoder uses grouped-query attention with 32 query heads and 2 key-value heads, a repeating pattern of three sliding-window local attention layers followed by one global layer, SwiGLU feed-forward blocks, and rotary position embeddings applied on the local layers, supporting a trained context of 131,072 tokens.

Meta describes the model as distilled from the larger Muse Spark and trained and evaluated around agentic behavior: end-to-end task completion, schema-accurate tool calling, multi-step reasoning across extended workflows, and recovery when a tool call returns an unexpected result. Reasoning effort is selectable across low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, and the model emits channel-scoped reasoning traces together with XML style tool calls rather than JSON, which requires parsers specific to this family. A companion block-diffusion drafter head predicts blocks of 16 tokens per forward pass for speculative decoding, with the main model verifying the proposals in parallel.