Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Flash 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 72.0% to 37.8%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 70.3% (#19 of 36) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.035 per sample) and faster (8.2s vs 8.3s per sample).

Claude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$0.150
Output $/1M$50.00$0.470
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%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.035$0.0004
Avg speed / sample8.28s8.24s
By task
Object Detection (low)
61.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0
$0.060
58.5%
$0.0007
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
59.5%
$0.0002
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%
$0.0001
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
88.9%
$0.0003
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
86.6%
$0.0002
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
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
73.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5
$0.028
68.9%
$0.0011

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.

Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 70.3% (#19 of 36) for Qwen3.8 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 72.0% against 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.035. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.2s 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.