Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Fable 5
96
Gemma 4 26B A4B
55
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 · Gemma 4 26B A4B unranked
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Knowledge
+25.6 difference
Multimodal
+18.6 difference
Claude Fable 5
Gemma 4 26B A4B
$10 / $50
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M+
256K
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 96 to 55. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 74.8 against 49.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.5% to 17.2%.
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.
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 96 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.5% and 17.2%.
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.8 versus 49.2. Inside this category, HLE w/o tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 73.8. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.