Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 131× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Gemma 4 31B 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 26.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 70.8% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 10.4% for Gemma 4 31B IT.
- Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper at $0.09 / $0.34 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 31B IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 43.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-04-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.09 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.34 |
| Results tracked | 50 | 35 |
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 4 31B IT: 41.9 (#98)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1753 | 1364 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 43.4% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1523 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 925.5 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), Gemma 4 31B IT: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B 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 4 31B IT: 26.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 70.6% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 1.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 82.7% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 39.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165 | 142.74 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 53% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 30.6% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.3 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1464 |
| 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: 69.3 (#5), Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | 10.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1528 | 1465 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 75.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.4% |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.0 (#32)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1278 |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | 1425 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), Gemma 4 31B IT: 54.0 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1509 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1589 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1532 | 1436 |
| LMArena Russian | 1525 | 1462 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | 1443 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1565 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.6 (#58)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1515 | 1433 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1524 | 1446 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.7 (#92)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1511 | 1443 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1416 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1368 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1452 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1120 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemma 4 31B IT?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 131× 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 31B IT?
Gemma 4 31B IT is cheaper. It lists at $0.09 per million input tokens and $0.34 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemma 4 31B IT better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 41.9 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 31B IT share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 4 31B IT has 35.