Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 76.9
- Supported · #2/183
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.6
- Supported · #121/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.91 versus 60.5, 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.
Share or export
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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 leads on the public coding lane, 76.9 to 43.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.
9 Claude Fable 5 only
9 Shared
1 Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- Shared results
- 9
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 9
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 83.6
- Supported · #2/181
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 53.0
- Supported · #71/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Fable 5
- 74.8
- Supported · #3/151
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 43.4
- Estimated · #104/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 76.2
- #11/22
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 60.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 62.3
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- 76.1
- #16/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 78.3
- #54/120
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 76.9Supported · #2/183 | 43.6Supported · #121/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 10 vs 4 public rows | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Knowledge | 83.6Supported · #2/181 | 53.0Supported · #71/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Agentic | 74.8Supported · #3/151 | 43.4Estimated · #104/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.2#11/22 | 60.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 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 |
| Multimodal | 62.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 76.1#16/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 78.3#54/120 | 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) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Fable 5: 84.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54%Normalized gap 30.3Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 80%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 54.2%Normalized gap 25.8Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite sourceOSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Fable 5: 85%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 74%Normalized gap 11.0Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite sourceLiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 89.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 79.0%Normalized gap 10.8Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite sourceMMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Claude Fable 5: 91.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 85.8%Normalized gap 5.7Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite source
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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.00155
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.0225
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
- $0.037
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 3.5 Flash-Lite
$0.03 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
2026-07-21
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 has the higher public score, 80.91 versus 60.5, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0225. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.037.
- 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 evidence19 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Fable 534.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 580.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite50.2%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 548.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.0%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 570.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 589.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 589.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite79.0%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Fable 595.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite75.0%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.91 versus 60.5, 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 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Fable 5 leads the public coding lane, 76.9 to 43.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 74.8 to 43.4. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.00155 on Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0225; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.037. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.