Roboflow

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare Claude Fable 5 and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max 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.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 77.1% to 56.0%.

Overall, Claude Fable 5 averages 78.8% (#6 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper ($0.0074 vs $0.034 per sample), while Claude Fable 5 is faster (8.7s vs 18.0s per sample).

Claude Fable 5Qwen3.8 Max

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table

Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026

PropertyClaude Fable 5Qwen3.8 Max
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M984K
Parameters2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$10.00$2.00
Output $/1M$50.00$6.00
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%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.034$0.0074
Avg speed / sample8.71s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
56.0%
$0.059
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
63.5%
$0.017
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
100.0%
$0.014
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
94.0%
$0.039
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
92.8%
$0.015
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
66.2%
$0.018
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
66.2%
$0.024
80.8%
$0.011

Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max: 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.

Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Qwen3.8 Max averages 84.0% (#2 of 24) against 78.8% (#6 of 24) 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 Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 77.1% against 56.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0074 per sample against $0.034. Claude Fable 5 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Fable 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 18.0s. 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.