Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #3 (Supported); Gemma 4 26B A4B #73 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 5 to Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 19
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B 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 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 57.13. 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 $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.
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 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 15.9 | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1747 | 770 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | 11.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 43.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.3% | 13.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | — | Not 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 |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | 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% | 39.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 40.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 25.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 79.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 18.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | -48.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 18.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 80.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 17.2% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 8.7% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemma 4 26B A4B wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 72.4% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 82.76 to 57.13.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.