Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-OCR
Compare Claude Fable 5 and GLM-OCR side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR.
Compare Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-OCR live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-OCR: 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.
GLM-OCR is a multimodal OCR model for complex document understanding, built on the GLM-V encoder-decoder architecture by Zhipu AI. The model combines a 0.4B-parameter CogViT visual encoder pre-trained on large-scale image-text data, a lightweight cross-modal connector with efficient token downsampling, and a 0.5B-parameter GLM language decoder, totaling 0.9B parameters. To address the inefficiency of standard autoregressive decoding in deterministic OCR tasks, GLM-OCR introduces a Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) mechanism that predicts multiple tokens per step, significantly improving decoding throughput while keeping memory overhead low through shared parameters. Training proceeds through four stages: visual encoder pretraining with MIM, CLIP, and distillation objectives; vision-language pretraining on document parsing, grounding, and VQA data; supervised fine-tuning on curated OCR datasets covering text, formula, table, and key information extraction; and full-task reinforcement learning to improve accuracy and structural consistency.
At the system level, GLM-OCR adopts a two-stage pipeline in which PP-DocLayout-V3 first performs layout analysis, followed by parallel region-level recognition. This design enables robust handling of diverse document layouts including tables, formulas, and multi-column text. The model supports document parsing and targeted recognition tasks, producing structured outputs in Markdown, JSON, and LaTeX formats across more than 100 languages. On the OmniDocBench V1.5 benchmark, GLM-OCR scores 94.62, and achieves 94.0 on OCRBench and 96.5 on UniMERNet for formula recognition.
Claude Fable 5 vs GLM-OCR Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Fable 5 | GLM-OCR |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Z.ai |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 0.9B | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 79.1% | |
| Avg Response Time | 21.66s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.0K | |
| Median output tokens | 406 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.041 | |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 40%(4/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 89.52% | 87.34% |
| Avg Response Time | 7.72s | 1.00s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 578 | |
| Median output tokens | 155 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.014 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 93.9%(93/99) | 87.9%(87/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 83.3%(25/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 86.7%(52/60) | 81.7%(49/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology