Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2 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 Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2 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 80.6% (#8 of 36) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0071 vs $0.035 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 8.3s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.2

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.2
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$1.25
Output $/1M$50.00$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
80.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.035$0.0071
Avg speed / sample8.28s7.78s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
60.2%
$0.0094
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
74.3%
$0.0049
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
90.6%
$0.0038
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
OCR (low)
94.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4
$0.039
93.8%
$0.0079
OCR (high)
93.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9
$0.039
Data Extraction (low)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
89.7%
$0.0033
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
74.8%
$0.0074
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
76.2%
$0.012

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.2: 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 Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.

Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.

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 80.6% (#8 of 36) for Muse Spark 1.2. 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 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0071 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 1.2 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.

Muse Spark 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s 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.