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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
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 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 984K |
| Parameters | 2.4T total, ~95B active | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| 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 / sample | 8.71s | 18.02s |
| 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 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 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.