Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mistral Large 4
Claude Fable 5.2 and Mistral Large 4 score 86.5% vs 56.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #45 of 67 models), so Claude Fable 5.2 leads overall.
- Claude Fable 5.2 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (88.1% vs 38.9%).
- Mistral Large 4 is about 1/9 of the cost: $0.0033 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Fable 5.2 is faster: 9.3s vs 31.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mistral Large 4 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 Mistral Large 4 on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mistral Large 4 Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Mistral |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 1.05T total, 49B active |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $8.00 | $0.700 |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | $2.10 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Phrase Grounding | Not listed | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 86.5% | 56.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0033 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 31.23s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | 94.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 46.1% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 54.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mistral Large 4: 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.
Mistral Large 4, nicknamed Le Chonk, is a natively multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Mistral that accepts interleaved text and image input and produces text output. It uses a granular MoE design with roughly 1.05 trillion total parameters and 49 billion active per token, reported as 52 billion when embeddings and output layers are counted, paired with a 1.6 billion parameter vision encoder and a context window of one million tokens. The model is trained from scratch on about 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's European data centers and supports more than 160 languages. It behaves as a hybrid instruct and reasoning system, with a reasoning effort setting that selects between direct answers and longer deliberation, alongside function calling and structured output for agentic workflows.
Image understanding is a focus of this generation, covering documents, charts, technical drawings and natural scenes, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for visual grounding queries. Reported grounding results include 42 percent on Dense200 and 73 percent on the DIOR-RSVG remote sensing benchmark. Mistral describes agentic vision workflows in which the model zooms into gigapixel satellite imagery or engineering drawings to verify details, and reports coding results such as 62 percent on DeepSWE. Figures published at preview time are preliminary because the reinforcement learning phase is still in progress.
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 56.8% (#45 of 67) for Mistral Large 4. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 88.1% against 38.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.031. Claude Fable 5.2 is priced at $8.00 per 1M input tokens and $40.00 per 1M output; Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.70 per 1M input tokens and $2.10 per 1M output. 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 31.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.