Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Muse Spark 1.3 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 1.3 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 1.3
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 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 92.7%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#7 of 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3.

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper ($0.0075 vs $0.035 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 23.1s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.3

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 Comparison Table

Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 3, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Muse Spark 1.3
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 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%
79.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.035$0.0075
Avg speed / sample8.28s23.14s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
58.6%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.0 to 59.4
$0.011
Object Detection (high)
65.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3
$0.078
56.6%
±2.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.5 to 59.3
$0.017
Counting (low)
69.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6
$0.019
74.3%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 77.0
$0.0049
Counting (high)
73.0%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0
$0.023
75.7%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 79.7
$0.0094
Identification (low)
97.9%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0
$0.013
92.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0036
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0063
OCR (low)
94.0%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4
$0.039
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.7 to 91.6
$0.0083
OCR (high)
93.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9
$0.039
86.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.2 to 90.4
$0.015
Data Extraction (low)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
88.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 89.7
$0.0031
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.016
87.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 87.6
$0.0044
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
73.3%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.0064
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
73.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 74.2
$0.012

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3: 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 1.3

Muse Spark 1.3 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs and the fourth Muse Spark release in five months, arriving on September 2, 2026. It takes text, images, video, and document files as input and returns text, and it operates over a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta trains the model for long-horizon agentic work, so it carries accumulated context and prior tool results forward across many turns, reconciles messy or conflicting inputs, and asks for clarification when a task is underspecified. Visual inputs such as screenshots and video clips feed a reasoning loop that runs against a real execution environment rather than a scripted sequence of steps.

The model exposes graded reasoning effort settings. An xhigh configuration is generally available at launch, while a max reasoning configuration aimed at harder reasoning and agentic problems arrives after further safety testing. Artificial Analysis measures Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 62 on its Intelligence Index and the xhigh configuration at 61, with agentic tool-use evaluations driving most of the gain over Muse Spark 1.2; max reaches 52% on Tau3-Bench Banking by spending more turns and reasoning tokens than xhigh. Prior Muse Spark versions emit bounding box coordinates, transcriptions, and structured field extractions from images on Roboflow Vision Evals.

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 52) against 79.8% (#10 of 52) for Muse Spark 1.3. 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 92.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Spark 1.3 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0075 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 1.3 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 23.1s. 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.