Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 39 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 39 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 10 categories and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.5 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 90.2% for Claude Fable 5 and 0% for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.50 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 66.8 | 41.5 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2026-07-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 62 | 39 |
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 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1625 | 1440 |
| SciCode | 61% | 41.3% |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | 39% |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1453 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | 765.27 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| GSO | 78.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | 29.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | 10% |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 74.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | 10.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | 60.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 53.5% |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1441 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | 19% |
| DTBench | 98.4% | 83.5% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.06 | 145.13 |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 91.4% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | 26% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 71.1% |
| ProofBench | 95% | 13% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1433 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1435 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | — |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1324 | 1268 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1427 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1543 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1451 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1454 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1506 | 1427 |
| LMArena Korean | 1488 | 1407 |
| LMArena Russian | 1504 | 1443 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1498 | 1442 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1502 | 1420 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1509 | 1435 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1435 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1420 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | 1559 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1504 | 1445 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 41.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite costs 24× 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 3.5 Flash Lite?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite share?
39 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39.