Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemma 2 27B
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 31× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 2 27B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.5 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 29.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2024-06-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 8K |
| Max output | 128K | 2K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.65 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.65 |
| Results tracked | 50 | 34 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 70.5 (#2), Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1523 | 1211 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), Gemma 2 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#5), Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1199 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 48% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165 | 122.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1212 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1528 | 1172 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 36.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), Gemma 2 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1509 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1589 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1532 | 1246 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1565 | 1175 |
| LMArena Russian | 1525 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1228 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1174 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1515 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1524 | 1231 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1511 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemma 2 27B?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 31× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemma 2 27B?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemma 2 27B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.