Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.1 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 Spark 1.1 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 Muse Spark 1.1 on Vision Evals
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 97.9% to 90.6%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 80.0% (#9 of 36) for Muse Spark 1.1.
Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper ($0.0069 vs $0.035 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 11.4s per sample).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1 Comparison Table
Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.1 | Muse Spark 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $4.25 |
| 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% | 80.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.035 | $0.0069 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.28s | 11.37s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0 | 58.4% |
| 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 | 75.7% |
| 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 | 90.6% |
| 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 | 92.5% |
| 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 | 87.6% |
| 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 | 74.8% |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5 | 76.2% |
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.1: 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.
Muse Spark 1.1 is a natively multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released on July 9, 2026, as a significant upgrade to the original Muse Spark. The model accepts text, image, video, PDF, and audio as input and produces text output. It operates with a 1-million-token context window (1,048,576 tokens per the Meta Model API documentation) and is designed specifically for agentic tasks that require planning, tool use, computer use, and multi-agent orchestration. The model runs in a "Thinking" mode, where adjustable reasoning effort is applied before generating a response. It can function both as a main agent gathering context, forming plans, and delegating to parallel subagents and as a subagent that adheres to assigned tasks and escalates when needed. It is trained to decide autonomously when to write automation scripts versus interact directly with a user interface.
Muse Spark 1.1 supports a range of multimodal capabilities including visual perception, image and video captioning, visual-to-code generation, and document analysis. The model was evaluated under Meta's Advanced AI Scaling Framework across frontier risk categories including chemical and biological threats, cybersecurity, and loss-of-control scenarios. Parameter count, architecture details, and training data composition are not publicly disclosed. The model is proprietary and closed-weight, accessible to consumers through the Meta AI app and to developers via the Meta Model API, which launched in public preview alongside this release.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 80.0% (#9 of 36) for Muse Spark 1.1. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 97.9% against 90.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Spark 1.1 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; Muse Spark 1.1 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 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 11.4s. 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.