Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemma 4 31B
Head-to-head evidence from 17 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 31B #46 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 4 31B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 11 to Gemma 4 31B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 17
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B 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 17 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 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 60.21. 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 coding, where it averages 89.2 against 41.6. Gemma 4 31B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 31B. 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 31B.
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 31B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 47.6 | Gemma 4 31B41.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | Margin→ 19.0 | Gemma 4 31B76.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B52.9 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Gemma 4 31B256K | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1747 | 811 | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | 14.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 59.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.3% | 15.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | 28.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 62.9% | 36.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 35.26% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 37.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B | 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% | 43.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 43.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 41.6% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 75.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 29.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 85.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 22.7% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | -45.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 19.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 81.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 26.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 19.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
MultimodalGemma 4 31B wins5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 75.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 82.76 to 60.21.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Fable 5 or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.9 versus 57.9. Claude Fable 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.