Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on 3 of the 4 Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 97.9% to 85.4%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 69.5% (#23 of 63) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.039 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 18.0s per sample).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 23, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 27.78B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $0.200 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $2.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 74.7% | 69.5% 4/5 tasks |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.039 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.35s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0 | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | 65.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3 | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 69.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6 | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0 | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0 | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 72.9% | – |
| by category |
| |
| OCR (high) | 75.3% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5 | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B: 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.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.