Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and Gemini 4 Carbon (Google): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 4 Carbon are neck and neck on quality (67.0 vs 65.1 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±7.3 margin), and Gemini 4 Carbon is 2.5× cheaper at $8.00 vs $20.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Claude Fable 5.1 for long context (68 vs 65); choose Gemini 4 Carbon for reasoning (79 vs 71), knowledge (76 vs 73), and coding (72 vs 71), where it also streams ~1.5× faster.
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores 67.0 on the BenchLeader Index and Gemini 4 Carbon scores 65.1 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.1 costs $20.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Gemini 4 Carbon costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Gemini 4 Carbon streams ~1.5× faster than Claude Fable 5.1 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 29 Oct 2026).
- Of the 17 benchmarks both models have, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 13 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
Claude Fable 5.1 benchmarks max Anthropic
Gemini 4 Carbon benchmarks high GoogleOpen in the comparison toolWhich 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 | Gemini 4 Carbon | 72 vs 71 category score; FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) 40.6% vs 31.6% | Medium |
| Reasoning | Gemini 4 Carbon | 79 vs 71 category score; HLE-Diamond (AA) 69.1% vs 60.1% | High |
| Knowledge | Gemini 4 Carbon | 76 vs 73 category score; AA-Omniscience v1.1 53.5 vs 46.3 | Medium |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.1 | 68 vs 65 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 85.3% vs 79.3% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Claude Fable 5.1 has an Arena rating (70 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Gemini 4 Carbon | $8.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.320 vs $0.800 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Either | 128.9 s (Claude Fable 5.1 (max)) vs 103.1 s (Gemini 4 Carbon (high)) to the first answer token | – |
| 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) and Gemini 4 Carbon (high) are neck and neck on quality (67.0 vs 65.1, within the ±7.3 margin).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, long context, maths, multimodal.
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) is stronger in coding, knowledge, reasoning.
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) is 2.5× cheaper ($8.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) streams 1.5× faster (100 vs 65 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | |
| Released | 1 Sept 2026 | 28 Oct 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 / $0.250 | $4.00 / $20.00 / – |
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 4 Carbon (high) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 70.6 | 78.9 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
| Coding | 70.6 | 71.7 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
| Agents & tools | 60.6 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 72.6 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 72.8 | 75.8 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
| Human preference | 69.9 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 67.1 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 67.6 | 64.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 |
Where sources disagree
Across the 17 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 4, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 13. Every overall index that rates both puts Gemini 4 Carbon ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 67.0 | 65.1 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 49.0 | 59.4 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
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 4 Carbon (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $20.00 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $10.00 / $50.00 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.250 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.019 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.150 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.135 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.800 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.030 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $13.04 | $7.76 |
| Output speed | 65 tok/s | 100 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 128.9 s | 103.1 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 136.6 s | 108.1 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Claude Fable 5.1 (max) cost $13.04 and Gemini 4 Carbon (high) $7.76, because Gemini 4 Carbon (high) used about 1.5× as many tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.1 (max) scores 67.0 and takes 129 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.1 scores 66.4 in 3 s, Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh) scores 64.8 in 71 s. Gemini 4 Carbon (high) scores 65.1 and takes 103 s to its first answer token. 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
134 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 4 Carbon (high) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 67.0 | 65.1 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 60.6 | – |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 70.6 | 71.7 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 69.9 | – |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 72.8 | 75.8 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 67.6 | 64.5 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.6 | – |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 70.6 | 78.9 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $20.00 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 65 tok/s | 100 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 128.9 s | 103.1 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | 46.5%† | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1523 | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.7% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 93.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.1% | 60.4% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 60.1% | 69.1% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.4%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 90.0% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 29.7% | 36.0% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 51.0% | 63.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 47.8%† | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 48.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.0% | – |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 65.5%† | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.6%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 63.1% | 64.2% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 92.9% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 50.9%† | – |
| GSO-Bench | GSO-Bench | 88.2%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1538 | – |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1745 | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 97.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 86.4% | – |
Show all 134 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 90.5%† | – |
| IOI | Vals AI | 90.8%† | – |
| 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%† | 89.1% |
| 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† | – |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 56.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.0% | 65.2% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 91.4% | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 77.1%† | – |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.0% | 48.5% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 31.6% | 40.6% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | – |
| Remote Labor Index | Scale AI / CAIS | 17.9%† | – |
| 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 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 85.0%† | – |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 87.2%† | – |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 61.5%† | – |
| 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%† | – |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | – | 67.2% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 17.5% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 6.7%† | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 55.3%† | 55.8% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 5.8% | – |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 61.5%† | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 22.9%† | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 49.2%† | 48.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 58.1%† | 63.1% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 40.0%† | – |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 63.3%† | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1233† | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 5421.6† | 16484.2† |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 59.4% | 77.8% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 26.2% | 28.4% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 6.4% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1669 | 1609 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.3% | 64.8% |
| 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% | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 100.0% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 97.0% | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1529 | – |
| 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 v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 46.3 | 53.5 |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 92.4%† | – |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 88.5%† | – |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 76.0%† | – |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 50.8%† | – |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 51.6%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 76.7%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 76.7%† | 76.5% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 53.5%† | – |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 91.3%† | – |
| 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 v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 68.4% | 58.3% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 30.0% | 88.6% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 89.5% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 73.0% | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1501 | – |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1487 | – |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1488 | – |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1511 | – |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1320 | – |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 83.4%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 90.6%† | – |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 70.8%† | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 41.9%† | 58.6%† |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1135 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 85.3% | 79.3% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1493 | – |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 15.6% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 166.5† | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 85.7%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 83.4% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 49.0 | 59.4 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 53.4 | – |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 340.8 | 351.6 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | – | 70.4 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | – | 66.3% |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 36.1% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | 25.0 | – |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 13.7%† | – |
Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 67.9 → 67.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $7.63/M to $13.04/M (71% up).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 new results (Robo-bench, Vals RSI Index).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 score revisions.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): BenchLeader Index 68.8 → 67.9.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 7 new results (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA), Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA), AA Cyber Index…).
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max): 2 score revisions.
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Carbon: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 4 Carbon?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) and Gemini 4 Carbon (high) are neck and neck on quality (67.0 vs 65.1, within the ±7.3 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 29 Oct 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Carbon: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Gemini 4 Carbon is cheaper today: $8.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Carbon better for coding?
- Gemini 4 Carbon scores higher in coding (72 vs 71 on the category index, where 50 is average). On FrontierCode 2.0 (AA), the top shared coding benchmark, it is 31.6% for Claude Fable 5.1 against 40.6% for Gemini 4 Carbon.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Carbon?
- Gemini 4 Carbon streams ~1.5× faster (100 vs 65 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 65). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
More questions (3)
- Which has lower latency?
- Gemini 4 Carbon answers first: 103.1 s against 128.9 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Carbon?
- Across the 17 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.1 leads 4, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 13. Every overall index that rates both puts Gemini 4 Carbon ahead.
- When was Gemini 4 Carbon released?
- Gemini 4 Carbon was released on 28 Oct 2026.