Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon and Claude Fable 5.2 score 89.4% vs 86.5% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#1 and #3 of 68 models), so Gemini 4 Carbon leads overall.
- Gemini 4 Carbon wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on OCR (87.2% vs 79.5%).
- Gemini 4 Carbon is about a fifth of the cost: $0.0061 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 4 Carbon is faster: 8.7s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon 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
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Nov 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 | No published price |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | No published price |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 86.5% | 89.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0061 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 8.71s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 84.5% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.8 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | 85.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.6 to 86.2 |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 90.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 91.9 |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | 86.9% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.8 to 89.2 |
| 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 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 89.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 91.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 93.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 92.3% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.0 to 92.7 |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon: 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 4 Carbon is a multimodal model from Google. It builds on Gemini 4 Argon and supports reasoning over text and images. Google describes improvements in coding and long-running tasks. Model weights are not publicly released.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 4 Carbon performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 89.4% (#1 of 68) against 86.5% (#3 of 68) for Claude Fable 5.2. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals OCR benchmark at low effort, Gemini 4 Carbon leads with 87.2% against 79.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 4 Carbon is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0061 per sample against $0.031. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 4 Carbon is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 9.3s. 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 image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.