Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs 187× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 21.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 92.9% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 35.2% for Gemma 4 26B A4B IT.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.0675 / $0.23 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 43.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-04-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.0675 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.23 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 28 |
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: 74.7 (#1), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 39.0 (#164)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1359 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 40% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 35.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1447 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 927.17 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B 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 (#7), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 21.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 31.1% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1439 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 74.9% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 29.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 141.85 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 47.6 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 82.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1470 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 45.7 (#85)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1447 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 73.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.2% |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 40.6 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1260 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 53.1 (#71)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1421 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1460 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1417 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 74.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1420 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 43.6 (#91)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1428 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Gemma 4 26B A4B IT: 58.6 (#115)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1434 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1402 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1305 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1441 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemma 4 26B A4B IT?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 26B A4B IT costs 187× 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 4 26B A4B IT?
Gemma 4 26B A4B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.0675 per million input tokens and $0.23 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemma 4 26B A4B IT better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 39.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 4 26B A4B IT has 28.