Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); Gemini 3 Flash #49 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3 Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 7 to Gemini 3 Flash.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 22
- Gemini 3 Flash only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Fable 5 is priced at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemini 3 Flash. Claude Fable 5 has the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for Gemini 3 Flash.
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 | Gemini 3 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Fable 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 Flash27.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | Gemini 3 Flash$0.5 input / $3 output | Gemini 3 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemini 3 Flash159 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | Gemini 3 Flash1.19 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | Gemini 3 Flash1M | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 43.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.4% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 49.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.63% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 11.4% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3 Flash | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 49.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 20.20% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 27.4% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 81.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 14.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | -3.6% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 45.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 90.2% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 55.1% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3 Flash on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3 Flash today?
Claude Fable 5: $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens Gemini 3 Flash: $0.50 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.