Roboflow

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.

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

Score by taskClaude Fable 5.2Mistral Large 4
Reasoning
88.1
38.9
OCR
79.5
46.1
Counting
86.5
54.5
Object Detection
81.6
59.3
Identification
96.9
85.4

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

PropertyClaude Fable 5.2Mistral Large 4
OrganizationAnthropicMistral
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateNov 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown1.05T total, 49B active
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsSee license terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$8.00$0.700
Output $/1M$40.00$2.10
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Phrase GroundingNot listedSupported
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%
56.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.031$0.0033
Avg speed / sample9.33s31.23s
By task
Object Detection (low)
81.6%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9
$0.048
59.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0
$0.0028
Object Detection (high)
83.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7
$0.055
50.2%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0
$0.023
Counting (low)
86.5%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5
$0.015
54.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4
$0.0011
Counting (high)
92.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6
$0.021
63.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0.0095
Identification (low)
96.9%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9
$0.011
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0009
Identification (high)
94.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.012
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0044
OCR (low)
79.5%
$0.030
46.1%
$0.0044
by category
Single value
64.8%
Transcription
94.7%
Structured JSON
92.8%
Text localization
74.5%
Single value
33.5%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
71.7%
Text localization
0.0%
OCR (high)
84.8%
$0.043
54.5%
$0.021
by category
Single value
77.4%
Transcription
97.9%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
72.9%
Single value
38.3%
Transcription
75.3%
Structured JSON
76.4%
Text localization
28.8%
Reasoning (low)
88.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4
$0.016
38.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1
$0.0013
Reasoning (high)
92.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4
$0.024
57.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6
$0.013

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mistral Large 4: 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.

Mistral Large 4

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.