Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Opus 5.5 score 86.5% vs 82.0% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #5 of 67 models), so Claude Fable 5.2 leads overall.
- Claude Fable 5.2 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (81.6% vs 74.5%).
- Claude Opus 5.5 is about half the cost: $0.015 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Opus 5.5 is faster: 7.6s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5 on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5 Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Claude Opus 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $8.00 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 86.5% | 82.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.015 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 7.63s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 74.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | 76.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0 |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 94.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 78.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 79.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5: Overview
Claude Fable 5.2 is a proprietary multimodal model from Anthropic, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text and images and produces text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. Adaptive thinking is always enabled, with an effort setting that controls reasoning. Anthropic positions Fable for demanding reasoning and long-running technical work, including coding and analysis of visual inputs.
Fable 5.2 succeeds Fable 5.1. Anthropic reports improvements in coding, reasoning, and vision, with output generation up to 30% faster than its predecessor. Fable and Mythos 5.2 share an underlying model, with additional cybersecurity and biology safeguards applied to Fable. Model weights are not publicly released.
Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.
On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.2 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 86.5% (#2 of 67) against 82.0% (#5 of 67) for Claude Opus 5.5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 81.6% against 74.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.015 per sample against $0.031. Claude Fable 5.2 is priced at $8.00 per 1M input tokens and $40.00 per 1M output; Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 9.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.