Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 2.5 Pro score 86.5% vs 57.6% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #44 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 33.7%).
- Gemini 2.5 Pro is about 1/6 of the cost: $0.0051 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster: 6.8s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Pro on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Jun 2025 |
| 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 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | $10.00 |
| 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% | 57.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0051 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 6.83s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 33.7% |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | – |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 52.7% |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | – |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 93.8% |
| Identification (high) | 94.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 65.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 64.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 42.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 62.3% |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro: 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.
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
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 57.6% (#44 of 67) for Gemini 2.5 Pro. 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 33.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0051 per sample against $0.031. Claude Fable 5.2 is priced at $8.00 per 1M input tokens and $40.00 per 1M output; Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.8s per inference against 9.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.