Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark Open
Claude Fable 5.2 and Muse Spark Open score 86.5% vs 69.4% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #27 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 63.8%).
- Muse Spark Open is about a fifth of the cost: $0.0059 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Spark Open is faster: 7.4s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark Open 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 Muse Spark Open on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark Open Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Muse Spark Open |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 816B total / 42B active |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $8.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | $4.25 |
| 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% | 69.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0059 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 7.37s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 57.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 58.2 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | 60.9% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 61.9 |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 75.7% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.0 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | 75.2% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 82.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 94.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 80.2% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 67.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 68.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 63.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.9 to 64.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 65.1% ±3.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 68.2 |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Muse Spark Open: 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.
Muse Spark Open is an open-weight multimodal model released by Meta on October 15, 2026. Its sparse mixture-of-experts architecture has 816 billion total parameters and activates 42 billion per token. It accepts text, images, audio and video, produces text, and supports a context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Meta provides BF16 and NVFP4 checkpoints for self-hosting, alongside access through hosted inference partners.
The model is designed for coding, tool use and multi-step reasoning over long tasks. Its visual inputs support workflows involving screenshots, documents and other image content. Vision Evals measures its text understanding, counting, identification, reasoning and object detection at Low and High effort. The published weights use the custom Muse Model License, with commercial use subject to its terms and the accompanying usage policy.
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 69.4% (#27 of 67) for Muse Spark Open. 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 63.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Spark Open is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0059 per sample against $0.031. Claude Fable 5.2 is priced at $8.00 per 1M input tokens and $40.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark Open is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Spark Open is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 9.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.