Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3 Pro
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and Gemini 3 Pro (Google): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 16 sources
As of 26 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (70.5 vs 60.4 on the BenchLeader Index). Pick Claude Fable 5.1 for knowledge (78 vs 56); pick Gemini 3 Pro for agents & tools (62 vs 61).
Claude Fable 5.1 benchmarks 
Gemini 3 Pro benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 5.1 | 75 vs 58 category score; Arena WebDev 1743 vs 1440 | High |
| Agents & tool use | Gemini 3 Pro | 62 vs 61 category score; Terminal-Bench 69.4% vs 57.9% | Medium |
| Maths | Claude Fable 5.1 | 73 vs 54 category score; Arena Maths 1529 vs 1477 | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.1 | 77 vs 66 category score; ARC-AGI-2 90.0% vs 54.0% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.1 | 78 vs 56 category score | High |
| Images and other media | Claude Fable 5.1 | 67 vs 66 category score; Arena Vision 1320 vs 1305 | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Claude Fable 5.1 | 70 vs 68 on Arena votes | Medium |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.5 vs 60.4.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Gemini 3 Pro is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | |
| Released | 1 Sept 2026 | 18 Nov 2025 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | – |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 3 Pro |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 / $0.250 | – |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 76.8 | 65.6 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Coding | 74.9 | 57.9 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Agents & tools | 60.5 | 61.8 | Gemini 3 Pro |
| Maths | 72.9 | 54.3 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Knowledge | 77.5 | 56.0 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Instruction following | – | 60.4 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 70.0 | 67.8 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Multimodal | 67.1 | 65.6 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Long context | 67.8 | – | not comparable |
| Composite | 89.2 | – | not comparable |
Where sources disagree
Across the 16 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 14, Gemini 3 Pro leads 2. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.5 | 60.4 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 53.4 | 22.3† | Claude Fable 5.1 |
| Arena Text | 1503 | 1486 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.250 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.150 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.63 | – |
| Output speed | 70 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 180.5 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 187.7 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.1 (max) scores 70.5 and takes 181 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh) scores 69.5 in 91 s, Claude Fable 5.1 (high) scores 69.4 in 18 s. Gemini 3 Pro scores 60.4; Gemini 3 Pro (high) scores 60.0, Gemini 3 Pro (low) scores 53.8. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
181 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 70.5 | 60.4 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 60.5 | 61.8 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 74.9 | 57.9 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 89.2 | – |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 70.0 | 67.8 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 77.5 | 56.0 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 67.8 | – |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.9 | 54.3 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | 65.6 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 76.8 | 65.6 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 60.4 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $20.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 70 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 180.5 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | – |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 92.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | 46.5%† | 37.5% |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | – | 76.4% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1523 | 1502 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 93.7% | 90.8%† |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.1% | 39.7%† |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.4%† | 91.7%† |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Kagi LLM Benchmark | – | 80.1% |
| GPQA Diamond (HELM) | HELM Capabilities | – | 80.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | 75.0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 90.0% | 54.0% |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 29.7% | 9.1%† |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 47.8%† | – |
| SciPredict | Scale AI SEAL | – | 25.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 48.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.0% | – |
| CL-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 15.8% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 65.5%† | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.6%† | – |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | – | 65.3% |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 72.9% |
| SciCode | SciCode | 63.1% | – |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 92.9% | 69.9% |
Show all 181 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 50.9%† | – |
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 88.2%† | 18.6% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1538 | 1517 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1743 | 1440 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 97.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 86.4% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 90.5%† | 86.4% |
| IOI | Vals AI | 90.8%† | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 76.4%† |
| SWE-Bench Pro | Scale AI SEAL | – | 43.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | SWE-bench | – | 74.2% |
| SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold) | SWE-bench | – | 77.4% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 54.6%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 7.0%† | – |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 61.3%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | 28.0%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 90.3%† | 14.3%† |
| SWE-Bench Pro (private) | Scale AI SEAL | – | 43.3% |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 60.0%† | – |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 56.7%† | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 67.0%† | – |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.3%† | – |
| CursorBench | Cursor | 51.8% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2143.2† | 1176.8 |
| AlgoTune | AlgoTune | – | 1.8 |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 56.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 91.4% | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 77.1%† | – |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.0% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | 69.4% |
| GDPval | OpenAI | – | 40.3% |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 17.9%† | 1.3% |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 68.6%† | – |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 13.9 | – |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 77.9%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 89.8%† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 66.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 41.7%† |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 87.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 85.0%† | – |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 87.2%† | 70.3% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 61.5%† | – |
| BFCL Overall | Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | – | 72.5% |
| τ²-bench | τ²-bench | – | 82.5%† |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | – | 18.0%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 62.7% | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 47.2% | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.5% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 57.5% | – |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | 13.2% | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 70.4%† | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 58.9%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 6.7%† | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 55.3%† | – |
| Poker Agent | Vals AI | – | 1078.9% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 5.8% | – |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 61.5%† | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 22.9%† | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 49.2%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 55.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 58.1%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 40.0%† | – |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 63.3%† | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1233† | – |
| BALROG | BALROG | – | 58.1% |
| DeepResearch Bench | DeepResearch Bench | – | 46.3%† |
| METR Time Horizons | METR | – | 71.0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 5421.6† | 5478.2 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 59.4% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 26.2% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 6.4% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1671 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.3% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.8% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 23.5% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 0.8% | – |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 90.2% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 87.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | 91.4% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 100.0% | 20.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 97.0% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 96.7%† |
| MGSM | Vals AI | – | 93.9%† |
| AIME 2026 | MathArena | – | 91.7% |
| HMMT February 2026 | MathArena | – | 86.4% |
| MathArena Apex | MathArena | – | 23.4% |
| Omni-MATH (HELM) | HELM Capabilities | – | 55.6% |
| MATH 500 | Vals AI | – | 96.4%† |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1529 | 1477 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 70.8% | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.3%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 82.0%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 80.3% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 43.5 | 15.3† |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 92.4%† | 90.1% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.5%† | 87.0%† |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 63.7%† |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.0%† | 72.6%† |
| MedQA | Vals AI | – | 96.0%† |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 50.8%† | 39.2% |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 51.6%† | 40.6% |
| MultiNRC | Scale AI SEAL | – | 59.0% |
| MMLU-Pro (HELM) | HELM Capabilities | – | 90.3% |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | – | 53.1%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 76.7%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 76.7%† | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 53.5%† | 52.2%† |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 91.3%† | 72.0%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 74.9%† | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 57.1% | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 27.6% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 67.2% | 55.8%† |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 27.4% | 8.6%† |
| Global-MMLU-Lite (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 92.2%† |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 89.5% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 73.0% | – |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 70.4%† |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | – | 65.7% |
| TutorBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 53.7% |
| IFEval (HELM) | HELM Capabilities | – | 87.6% |
| WildBench (HELM) | HELM Capabilities | – | 85.9% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1501 | 1473 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | 1486 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1487 | 1485 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1488 | 1496 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1511 | 1491 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1320 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 83.4%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 80.2%† |
| VISTA | Scale AI SEAL | – | 51.5% |
| MMMU-Pro (official) | MMMU | – | 81.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 90.6%† | 87.5%† |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 70.8%† | 69.1%† |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 48.5%† | 47.6%† |
| AudioMC | Scale AI SEAL | – | 54.6%† |
| AudioMC (text output) | Scale AI SEAL | – | 54.6%† |
| VTB | Scale AI SEAL | – | 26.9% |
| GeoBench | GeoBench | – | 84.0% |
| VPCT | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 91.0% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.9%† | – |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1135 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 85.3% | 76.0%† |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1493 | 1451 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 15.6% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 166.5† | 153.1 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 85.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 83.4% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 53.4 | 28.0† |
| HELM Capabilities mean | HELM Capabilities | – | 79.9% |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 36.1% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | 25.0 | – |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 13.7%† | 41.7% |
| MASK | Scale AI SEAL | – | 42.6% |
| PropensityBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 52.9% |
| Metadata | |||
| AA Openness Index | Artificial Analysis | – | 5.6† |
Data as of 2026-10-26. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 new results (Robo-bench, Vals RSI Index).
- Gemini 3 Pro: 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Gemini 3 Pro: 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 70.0 → 70.6.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 score revisions.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Gemini 3 Pro: 1 new result (PRBench Legal).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 70.9 → 70.0.
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Wonder Full
- Gemini 3 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Gemini 3 Pro vs Gemini 4 Argon
- Gemini 3 Pro vs Muse Wonder Full
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3 Pro
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3 Pro: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 3 Pro?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.5 vs 60.4. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-26, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 3 Pro for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (75 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1743 for Claude Fable 5.1 against 1440 for Gemini 3 Pro.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 3 Pro for agents and tool use?
- Gemini 3 Pro scores higher in agentic tasks (62 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 57.9% for Claude Fable 5.1 against 69.4% for Gemini 3 Pro.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3 Pro?
- Across the 16 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 14, Gemini 3 Pro leads 2. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.1 ahead.
- When was Claude Fable 5.1 released?
- Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 1 Sept 2026.