Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Compare Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Open Prompt, and Object Detection.
Compare Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 on Vision Evals
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 87.0% to 60.9%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5 averages 79.6% (#3 of 16) against 64.8% (#15 of 16) for Claude Opus 4.8.
Claude Opus 4.8 is both cheaper ($0.013 vs $0.029 per sample) and faster (4.2s vs 8.4s per sample).
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Comparison Table
Evals updated July 10, 2026Pricing updated July 21, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | May 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $5.00 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $25.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks | ||
| Overall | 79.6% | 64.8% |
| Object Detection | 40.6% | 18.6% |
| Counting | 63.5% | 52.7% |
| Identification | 100.0% | 75.0% |
| OCR | 94.0% | 93.8% |
| Data Extraction | 92.8% | 87.6% |
| Reasoning | 87.0% | 60.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.029 | $0.013 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.4s | 4.2s |
Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8: Overview
Claude Fable 5 is Anthropic's first generally available Mythos-class large language model, released on June 9, 2026. It is built for long-horizon, asynchronous, and agentic tasks that prior Claude generations could not sustain, including multi-day autonomous coding sessions, complex knowledge work, and document-heavy analysis. The model supports a 1 million token context window with up to 128,000 output tokens per request and uses adaptive thinking as its sole reasoning mode, where the effort level is adjustable but raw chain-of-thought is never returned. Vision capabilities allow the model to parse diagrams, charts, and tables embedded in files and PDFs, and to use visual feedback to evaluate its own coding outputs against design goals. On benchmarks such as SWE-Bench Pro, the model scores 80.3% compared to 69.2% for Claude Opus 4.8, and it leads on CursorBench 3.1 for autonomous coding workflows.
Claude Fable 5 shares the same underlying model weights as Claude Mythos 5, but is deployed with safety classifiers that automatically reroute queries in high-risk domains — including cybersecurity, biology, and chemistry — to Claude Opus 4.8. These classifiers trigger in fewer than 5% of sessions on average. As a designated Covered Model, all traffic is subject to mandatory 30-day data retention to support safety monitoring. The model is available via the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Vertex AI, and Microsoft Foundry. Anthropic has not publicly disclosed parameter count, architecture details, or training data composition for this model.
Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.
Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. It achieves 88.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 69.2% on SWE-bench Pro. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 79.6% (#3 of 16) against 64.8% (#15 of 16) for Claude Opus 4.8. 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, Claude Fable 5 leads with 87.0% against 60.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.013 per sample against $0.029. Claude Fable 5 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.2s per inference against 8.4s. 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.