Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 131× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 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 leads 76.8 to 27.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Surface Evolver Bench: 95% for Claude Fable 5 and 30.6% 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.
- Claude Fable 5 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 | Gemma 4 31B IT | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 66.8 | 43.5 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 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 | 62 | 35 |
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), Gemma 4 31B IT: 42.3 (#108)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1625 | 1366 |
| SciCode | 61% | 43.4% |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1459 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | 925.5 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| GSO | 78.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 54.0 (#2), Gemma 4 31B IT: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 74.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#6), Gemma 4 31B IT: 27.2 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 91.4% | 63.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | 70.6% |
| CritPt | 28.6% | 1.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 98.4% | 82.7% |
| LMCA | 61.1% | 39.3% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | 30.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.06 | 142.74 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 53% |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.5 (#5), Gemma 4 31B IT: 43.2 (#81)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 95% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.2 (#25), Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#151)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 75.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | 10.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1465 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.4% |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 45.3 (#17), Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.6 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1324 | 1277 |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | 1425 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 57.3 (#9), Gemma 4 31B IT: 53.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1543 | 1476 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1435 |
| LMArena Russian | 1504 | 1460 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1498 | 1444 |
| LMArena German | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1506 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1488 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 78.6 (#8), Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.5 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1502 | 1433 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#23), Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#71)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1509 | 1446 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 75.9 (#5), Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.5 (#96)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B IT |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1443 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1415 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | 1368 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | 1120 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1504 | 1452 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemma 4 31B IT?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.8 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 4 31B IT costs 131× 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 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 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 31B IT better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.6 versus 42.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Fable 5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 4 31B IT share?
33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 62 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 4 31B IT has 35.