Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs Gemma 4 12B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

82.76/100
Margin
36.5pts
← winning
46.28/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #3 (Supported); Gemma 4 12B #145 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 4 12B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 12 to Gemma 4 12B.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
15
Claude Fable 5 only
19
Gemma 4 12B only
12
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 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 46.28. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 12B.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 4 12B
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔGemma 4 12B
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9Margin 11.2Gemma 4 12B69.1
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6MarginNo overlapGemma 4 12BNot measured
CodingClaude Fable 589.2MarginNo overlapGemma 4 12BNot measured
ReasoningClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B43.4
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B77.5
MathClaude Fable 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B77.5

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+Gemma 4 12B256KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1747651Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%7.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%36.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.3%7.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1574Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 51.1%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 93.6%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 26.8%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 62.9%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
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%31.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%38.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
AA-LCRSource 70.0%55.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%0.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
BBHSource 53%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 43.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%21.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%75.3%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%14.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%-51.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%16.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%80.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
GPQASource 78.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 78.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 77.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 5.2%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 83.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
AIME26Source 77.5%Not comparable
MultimodalGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1332Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 69.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 79.7%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 48.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5Gemma 4 12BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%73.5%Gemma 4 12B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 12B?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 82.76 to 46.28.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 12B?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026