Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B 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.
QwenQwen3.5-27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Identification, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 97.9% to 80.2%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 64.1% (#30 of 63) for Qwen3.5-27B.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper ($0.0043 vs $0.039 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 80.4s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3.5-27B

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.5-27B
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
ParametersUnknown27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$0.260
Output $/1M$50.00$2.60
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%
64.1%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.1%FP860.9%AWQ-INT461.2%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.039$0.0043
Avg speed / sample8.35s80.37s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
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
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
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
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
96.9%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0
$0.014
–
OCR (low)
72.9%
$0.039
–
by category
Single value
64.3%
Transcription
84.7%
Structured JSON
89.2%
Text localization
46.5%
OCR (high)
75.3%
$0.051
–
by category
Single value
69.1%
Transcription
95.2%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
43.4%
Reasoning (low)
72.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5
$0.019
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
–

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.5-27B: 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.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 64.1% (#30 of 63) for Qwen3.5-27B. 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 80.2%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0043 per sample against $0.039. 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 80.4s. 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.