# Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemma 2 27B

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 31× 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-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 21

## Summary

- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 2 27B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 29.4 |
| Rank | 2 | 312 |
| Context | 1M | 8K |
| Input $/M | $10 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $50 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1211 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1198 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 48% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 122.08 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1212 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1172 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 36.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1247 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1174 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1231 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 31× 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 Gemma 2 27B?

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemma 2 27B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.