Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on the public coding lane, 80 to 68.4, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Updated September 30, 2026. Rank says Claude Fable 5.1 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.1 versus 64.59, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 9
- Claude Fable 5.1 only
- 21
- Gemini 4 Argon only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
Supported: Claude Fable 5.1 · Estimated: Gemini 4 ArgonHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 4 Argon is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limited
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
80.0Claude Fable 5.168.4Gemini 4 Argon
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
21 Claude Fable 5.1 only
9 Shared
8 Gemini 4 Argon only
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 27.5Claude Fable 5.1:41.7%Gemini 4 Argon:69.2%AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 19.9Claude Fable 5.1:31.4%Gemini 4 Argon:51.3%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5.1
- 80.0
- Supported · #3/144
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 68.4
- Supported · #8/144
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5.1 leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5.1
- 85.7
- Supported · #3/170
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 72.9
- Supported · #11/170
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5.1 leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Fable 5.1
- 79.0
- Supported · #2/119
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 63.7
- Estimated · #14/119
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- 81.4
- #3/27
- Gemini 4 Argon
- 77.1
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5.1
- Not ranked
- Gemini 4 Argon
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 4 Argon | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 80.0Supported · #3/144 | 68.4Supported · #8/144 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 4 public rows | Claude Fable 5.1 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 85.7Supported · #3/170 | 72.9Supported · #11/170 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 1 public rows | Claude Fable 5.1 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 79.0Supported · #2/119 | 63.7Estimated · #14/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 81.4#3/27 | 77.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.007
- Fit state unavailable
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.13
- Fit state unavailable
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5.1
- $0.75
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 4 Argon
- $0.16
- Fit state unavailable
Gemini 4 Argon has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5.1Gemini 4 Argon
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5.1
Gemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Google Gemini 4 Argon announcementAPI model ID
Claude Fable 5.1
claude-fable-5-1
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchGemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Fable 5.1
$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens
Anthropic Fable 5.1 launchGemini 4 Argon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini 4 Argon announcementDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Gemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Fable 5.1
Not sourced
Gemini 4 Argon
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5.1
Generally Available · Claude API, Claude products, AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure
Anthropic Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 launchGemini 4 Argon
Limited Access · Fairwind Program
Google Gemini 4 Argon announcementReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5.1
Reasoning
Gemini 4 Argon
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5.1
Proprietary
Gemini 4 Argon
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5.1
2026-09-01
Gemini 4 Argon
2026-09-30
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.1 versus 64.59, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.13. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.75 vs $0.16.
- Context tradeoff
- A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score, 82.1 versus 64.59, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Fable 5.1 leads the public coding lane, 80 to 68.4, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 79 to 63.7. Gemini 4 Argon is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.007 on Gemini 4 Argon; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.75 and $0.16. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Fable 5.155.80%SourceGemini 4 Argon57.40%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Fable 5.152.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5.141.7%SourceGemini 4 Argon69.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5.131.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon51.3%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Fable 5.177.8%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Fable 5.181.5%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Fable 5.173.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Fable 5.123.7 turnsSourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.185.0%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Fable 5.172%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Shared sourceClaude Fable 5.158.0%Gemini 4 Argon68.0%Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
Finance Agent v2
Claude Fable 5.1—Gemini 4 Argon65.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Fable 5.1—Gemini 4 Argon39.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Claude Fable 5.1—Gemini 4 Argon57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Fable 5.143 fixesSourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 5.181.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Fable 5.189.1%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Fable 5.154.7%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Fable 5.167.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon77.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Shared sourceClaude Fable 5.156.3%Gemini 4 Argon55.1%Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result
ProgramBench
Claude Fable 5.187.6%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 5.173.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.190.5%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Claude Fable 5.151.8%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Claude Fable 5.140.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon45.3%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Fable 5.1—Gemini 4 Argon91.90%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-1
Claude Fable 5.197.50%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Fable 5.190%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Claude Fable 5.165.0%SourceGemini 4 Argon84.2%SourceGemini 4 Argon leads this result
Graphwalks BFS 128K
Claude Fable 5.1—Gemini 4 Argon99.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Fable 5.165%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5.160.9%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.193.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Fable 5.192.4%SourceGemini 4 Argon—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Fable 5.1—Gemini 4 Argon88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Shared sourceClaude Fable 5.11.0%Gemini 4 Argon0.7%Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
38 public results · 9 shared
Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 30, 2026