Roboflow

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Claude Fable 5.2: 86.5% average across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 of 67 models). We have not run Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite through Roboflow's Vision Evals, so there is no head-to-head score.

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Comparison Table

Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateNov 2026Jul 2025
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termscommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$8.00$0.100
Output $/1M$40.00$0.400
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Both support 5 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
86.5%
Not evaluated
Avg cost / sample$0.031–
Avg speed / sample9.33s–
By task
Object Detection (low)
81.6%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9
$0.048
–
Object Detection (high)
83.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7
$0.055
–
Counting (low)
86.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5
$0.015
–
Counting (high)
92.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6
$0.021
–
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.011
–
Identification (high)
94.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.012
–
OCR (low)
79.5%
$0.030
–
by category
Single value
64.8%
Transcription
94.7%
Structured JSON
92.8%
Text localization
74.5%
OCR (high)
84.8%
$0.043
–
by category
Single value
77.4%
Transcription
97.9%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
72.9%
Reasoning (low)
88.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4
$0.016
–
Reasoning (high)
92.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4
$0.024
–

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Overview

Claude Fable 5.2

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.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, released for general availability on July 22, 2025, is the most cost-efficient model in the Gemini 2.5 family, designed for high-volume and latency-sensitive tasks. It is multimodal, supporting text, images, video, audio, and PDFs as inputs, with text as its primary output. The model handles up to 1 million input tokens and generates outputs up to 64K tokens, making it suitable for large-scale document or media processing at low cost. It is built on a Sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with native multimodal support, though exact parameter counts are undisclosed.

Flash-Lite offers the lowest usage cost among Gemini 2.5 models. It introduces developer controls for “thinking mode,” allowing fine-tuning of reasoning depth vs. efficiency. It also integrates native tools such as code execution, search grounding, and URL context. While strong on translation, classification, coding, and general multimodal reasoning, it lacks support for image or audio generation in its stable release and is less capable than Gemini 2.5 Flash or Pro on complex reasoning-heavy workflows.