Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and Claude Fable 5.2 score 87.3% vs 86.5% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#3 and #4 of 69 models), so they are effectively tied.
- Claude Fable 5.2 wins 2 of the 5 tasks, but the widest gap is OCR, where Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads 86.7% vs 79.5%.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen is about a third of the cost: $0.0094 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Fable 5.2 is faster: 9.3s vs 13.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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 Hydrogen on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Not listed | Demo |
Both support 6 more tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 86.5% | 87.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0094 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 13.23s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 81.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.3 to 81.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | 83.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 83.8 |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 83.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 86.5 |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | 84.2% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.4 to 87.8 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 |
| 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% | 86.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 87.2% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 88.1% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 88.7 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 92.0 |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Hydrogen: 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 Hydrogen is a multimodal model from Google, positioned as a successor to Gemini 3.8 Flash with stronger agent and coding capabilities at Flash-class speed.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.2 performed better. It scores higher on 2 of the five vision tasks and averages 86.5% (#4 of 69) against 87.3% (#3 of 69) for Gemini 4 Hydrogen. 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 Hydrogen leads with 86.7% against 79.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0094 per sample against $0.031. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Fable 5.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.3s per inference against 13.2s. 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.