Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemma 3n E4b IT
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3n E4b IT costs 267× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 3n E4b IT in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 19.2.
- Gemma 3n E4b IT is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.12 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
- Gemma 3n E4b IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 36.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2025-05-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.06 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.12 |
| Results tracked | 50 | 18 |
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 3n E4b IT: 36.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1523 | 1269 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), Gemma 3n E4b IT: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 3n E4b IT: 19.2 (#239)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1284 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 31.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), Gemma 3n E4b IT: 32.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), Gemma 3n E4b IT: 33.6 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1528 | 1245 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), Gemma 3n E4b IT: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 3n E4b IT: 43.5 (#179)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1509 | 1285 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1589 | 1310 |
| LMArena French | 1532 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1312 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1565 | 1274 |
| LMArena Russian | 1525 | 1288 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1305 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1259 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), Gemma 3n E4b IT: 66.3 (#205)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1515 | 1255 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), Gemma 3n E4b IT: 38.8 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1524 | 1277 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), Gemma 3n E4b IT: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 3n E4b IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1511 | 1306 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1287 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1276 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemma 3n E4b IT?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3n E4b IT costs 267× 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 3n E4b IT?
Gemma 3n E4b IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.12 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemma 3n E4b IT better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 36.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemma 3n E4b IT share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 3n E4b IT has 18.