Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 84.6
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
2 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 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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.
14 Claude Fable 5 only
2 Shared
13 Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 14
- Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- 13
- 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 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- 57.9
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 88.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Fable 5
- Not measured
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.7 Flash | 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 | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 57.9 | 88.7 | Not comparable1 vs 1 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.00262
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.04875
- Fits in one request
Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
- $0.2025
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the lower modeled cost
Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Fable 5Gemini 3.7 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.7 Flash
API model ID
Claude Fable 5
claude-fable-5
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.7 Flash
gemini-3.7-flash
Google Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash
Not published
Google: Introducing Gemini 3.7 FlashDocumented inputs
Claude Fable 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.7 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Provider availability
Claude Fable 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemini 3.7 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Gemini Enterprise, Gemini app via Spark
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash launchReasoning profile
Claude Fable 5
Reasoning
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
License
Claude Fable 5
Proprietary
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Fable 5
2026-06-09
Gemini 3.7 Flash
2026-08-13
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.04875. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.2025.
- 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 evidence29 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Fable 534.0%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash14.9%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Fable 585%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash30.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash47.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash26.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Fable 595%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Fable 580%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Fable 553.5%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash43.6%SourceClaude Fable 5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Fable 584.3%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Fable 570.6%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Fable 570.5%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Fable 587.0%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
APEX-SWE
Claude Fable 558.8%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Fable 554.2%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
3DCodeBench
Claude Fable 543.7%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
CADGenBench Generation
Claude Fable 537.3%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash65.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
GDM-MRCR v2 128K average
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash97%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Multimodal
Blueprint-Bench 2
Claude Fable 538.6%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Fable 557.9%SourceGemini 3.7 Flash—Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash34.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash84.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%SourceNot directly comparable
LVBench
Claude Fable 5—Gemini 3.7 Flash85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
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 3.7 Flash?
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 3.7 Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.04875; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.2025. Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.