Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 84.6
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Updated August 27, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 Claude Fable 5 only
23 Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 12
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 23
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 89.2
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 31.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 57.9
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 82.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 84.6 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 89.2 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 77.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 31.8 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 57.9 | 82.6 | Not comparable1 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- $0.035
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Fable 5
- $0.65
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.136
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Pro 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
- $0.9
- Fits in one request
- Gemini 3.1 Pro
- $0.2
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5Gemini 3.1 Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.1 Pro
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.1 Pro
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Fable 5
$1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingGemini 3.1 Pro
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.1 Pro
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.1 Pro
Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google Gemini model catalogReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
Gemini 3.1 Pro
2026-02-19
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.136. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.2.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence35 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Fable 534.0%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%SourceNot directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 570.5%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 589.5%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%SourceGemini 3.1 Pro—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.008 on Gemini 3.1 Pro; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.136; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.2. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 27, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.