# Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 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 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-fable-5-1-vs-gemini-3-5-flash-lite
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 38

## Summary

- They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 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 5.1 leads 89.6 to 25.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 87.8% for Claude Fable 5.1 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 5.1.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 41.5 |
| Rank | 2 | 133 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $10 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $2.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1440 |
| SciCode | 63.1% | 41.3% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | 39% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1453 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 765.27 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | 29.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | 10% |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | 10.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 60.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 53.5% |
| CritPt | 31.1% | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1441 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | 19% |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 83.5% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 145.13 |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | 26% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | 0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 71.1% |
| ProofBench | 100% | 13% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1433 |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1435 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1268 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1427 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1451 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1454 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1427 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1407 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1443 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1442 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1420 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1435 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1435 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1420 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | 1559 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1445 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 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 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 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 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 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 5.1 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite share?

38 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39.