Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #3 (Supported); Gemini 3.1 Pro #86 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 22 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 26 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 12
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 82.76 to 54.7. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 24.7 | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 |
| Math | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1747 | 965 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | 21.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 95.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.3% | 23.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | 37.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | 42.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 93.6% | 58.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | 16.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 62.9% | 53.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | 73.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.87% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.5% | 68.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 58.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 32.03% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 46.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 94.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 44.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | 32.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 55.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 49.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 94.3% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 45.4% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemini 3.1 Pro wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blueprint-Bench 2Source | 38.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1332 | 1281 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 29.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 81.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 82.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 77.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 82.76 to 54.7.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 57.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.