Roboflow

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2

Compare Claude Fable 5 and Muse Spark 1.2 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 Muse Spark 1.2 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.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Fable 5
Run to compare this model.
MetaMuse Spark 1.2
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 74.3% to 63.5%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5 averages 78.8% (#7 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.

Muse Spark 1.2 is both cheaper ($0.0071 vs $0.034 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 8.7s per sample).

Claude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.2

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5Muse Spark 1.2
OrganizationAnthropicMeta
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$1.25
Output $/1M$50.00$4.25
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
78.8%
80.4%
Avg cost / sample$0.034$0.0071
Avg speed / sample8.71s7.78s
By task
Object Detection
56.0%
$0.059
60.1%
$0.0094
Counting
63.5%
$0.017
74.3%
$0.0049
Identification
100.0%
$0.014
90.6%
$0.0038
OCR
94.0%
$0.039
93.8%
$0.0079
Data Extraction
92.8%
$0.015
88.7%
$0.0033
Reasoning (low)
66.2%
$0.018
74.8%
$0.0074
Reasoning (high)
66.2%
$0.024
76.2%
$0.012

Claude Fable 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview

Claude Fable 5

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.

Muse Spark 1.2

Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.

Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Muse Spark 1.2 averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 78.8% (#7 of 25) for Claude Fable 5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 74.3% against 63.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0071 per sample against $0.034. Claude Fable 5 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 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 1.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 8.7s. 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.