Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5 Anthropic

66.8

Rank #5 Confirmed

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Google

37.0

Rank #211 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 10 categories and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5 leads 76.8 to 22.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 91.9% for Claude Fable 5 and 35.2% for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index66.837.0
Released2026-06-072025-06-17
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1.05M
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$50$0.40
Results tracked6233

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 70.6 (#4), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.5 (#173)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
WeirdML91.9%35.2%
LMArena Coding15191373
ALE-Bench2,041325.9
DeepSWE69.9%—
FrontierCode53.5%—
LMArena WebDev1625—
FrontierSWE47%—
SciCode61%—
GSO78.4%—
MirrorCode63.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 28.0 (#96)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
APEX-Agents63.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—36.9%
Remote Labor Index16.1%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
PostTrainBench41.8%—
GBAEval74.5%—
GDP.pdf30%—
LMArena Search1230—
Vending-Bench 25,680—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 22.2 (#205)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Kagi LLM Benchmark91.4%40.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15081377
DTBench98.4%62.8%
LMCA61.1%18.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index162.06133.94
ARC-AGI-289.2%—
SimpleBench81.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.7%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt28.6%—
Chess Puzzles41%—
EnigmaEval39.3%—
EBR-Bench39.5%—
Mystery Game Puzzles52%—
Surface Evolver Bench95%—
Bench to the Future 30.13—

Math Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 38.0 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Math15191373
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)87%—
FrontierMath Tier 490.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench95%—
Omni-MATH—48%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 32.5 (#210)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Expert15341373
GPQA Diamond85.9%—
SimpleQA Verified70.7%—
MMLU-Pro—53.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—3.3%
GPQA (HELM)—30.9%

Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 29.1 (#114)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Vision13241198
VPCT—30%
Blueprint-Bench 238.6%—
Furniture Assembly35.8%—
LMArena Document1496—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 49.3 (#134)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Non-English14811369
LMArena Chinese15431404
LMArena French15051388
LMArena German14861389
LMArena Japanese15061359
LMArena Korean14881360
LMArena Russian15041373
LMArena Spanish14981396

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 70.0 (#168)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Instruction Following15021367
IFEval—81%

Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 33.3 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Longer Query15091373
Fiction.LiveBench—47.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads

Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: 56.8 (#135)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
LMArena Text14911379
LMArena Creative Writing14941367
LMArena Multi-Turn15041366
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1943—
WildBench—81.8%
EQ-Bench 41340—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?

Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 37.0 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite better for coding?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper