Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 54.1 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.6 Flash costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 45 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 45 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Gemini 3.6 Flash in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.5 to 57.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 90.2% for Claude Fable 5 and 22% for Gemini 3.6 Flash.
- Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.75 / $3.75 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
- Gemini 3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 66.8 | 54.1 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2026-07-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.75 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $3.75 |
| Results tracked | 62 | 46 |
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 3.6 Flash: 50.0 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | 46.7% |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | 34.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1625 | 1538 |
| SciCode | 61% | 52.7% |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1491 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | 715.52 |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| GSO | 78.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 32.3 (#65)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | 46.9% |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | 14% |
| 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 3.6 Flash: 58.8 (#22)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | 60.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | 89% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | 91.2% |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 10.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | 43% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1485 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | 30% |
| DTBench | 98.4% | 95.5% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | 44.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.06 | 154.25 |
| 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 3.6 Flash: 57.3 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | 58.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | 22% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 94.2% |
| ProofBench | 95% | 36% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1505 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 70.8% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 67.8 (#8)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 94.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | 66.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1488 |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 38.5 (#64)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1324 | 1298 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | 31.2% |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | 23.3% |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | 1456 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 56.5 (#19)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1469 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1543 | 1531 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1504 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | 1478 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1506 | 1476 |
| LMArena Korean | 1488 | 1431 |
| LMArena Russian | 1504 | 1487 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1498 | 1475 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 77.0 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1502 | 1466 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 45.1 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1509 | 1474 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Gemini 3.6 Flash: 68.2 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1479 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1465 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | 1604 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1504 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 54.1 on the Noometry Index. Gemini 3.6 Flash costs 13× 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 3.6 Flash?
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.75 per million input tokens and $3.75 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 50.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.6 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash share?
45 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 3.6 Flash has 46.