Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 74.8
- Supported · #3/151
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 50.7
- Supported · #60/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
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 70.11, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
7 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 58.9, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5 leads on the public agentic lane, 74.8 to 50.7, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.
11 Claude Fable 5 only
7 Shared
1 Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 11
- Gemini 3.6 Flash only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
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.
Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 76.9
- Supported · #2/183
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 58.9
- Supported · #30/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Fable 5
- 83.6
- Supported · #2/181
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 68.6
- Supported · #18/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Fable 5 leads · intervals overlap
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 76.2
- #11/22
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 77.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not ranked
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 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 3.6 Flash
- 82.3
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 78.3
- #54/120
- Gemini 3.6 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 74.8Supported · #3/151 | 50.7Supported · #60/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 2 public rows | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Coding | 76.9Supported · #2/183 | 58.9Supported · #30/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 10 vs 4 public rows | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Knowledge | 83.6Supported · #2/181 | 68.6Supported · #18/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Claude Fable 5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Reasoning | 76.2#11/22 | 77.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 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 |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 62.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 82.3Unranked · 1 rankable row | 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.
cursorBench32
Coding
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Claude Fable 5: 91.5%Gemini 3.6 Flash: 89.3%Normalized gap 2.2Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.6 Flash sourceOSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Fable 5: 85%Gemini 3.6 Flash: 83%Normalized gap 2.0Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.6 Flash sourceLiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Claude Fable 5: 89.8%Gemini 3.6 Flash: 88.1%Normalized gap 1.7Claude Fable 5 source Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
- $0.135
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.6 Flash
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.6 Flash
gemini-3.6-flash
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash 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 3.6 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.6 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.6 Flash model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.6 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio
Google latest Gemini model guideReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
Gemini 3.6 Flash
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 70.11, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0975. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.135.
- 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 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash83%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Fable 580.5%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash73.8%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Fable 548.0%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Shared sourceClaude Fable 570.5%Gemini 3.6 Flash53.5%Claude Fable 5 leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 589.5%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Fable 589.8%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash88.1%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Fable 595.0%SourceGemini 3.6 Flash79.6%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
deepSwe
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.6 Flash49%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.91 versus 70.11, 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 3.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 leads the public coding lane, 76.9 to 58.9, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 74.8 to 50.7, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.00525 on Gemini 3.6 Flash; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0975; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.135. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.