Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (Google): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 10 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Gemini 3.5 Flash on quality (69.4 vs 62.5 on the BenchLeader Index), but Gemini 3.5 Flash is 4.7× cheaper at $3.38 vs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in. Gemini 3.5 Flash streams ~2× faster.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 62.5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash costs $3.38 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash streams ~2× faster than Claude Fable 5.2 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
- Of the 10 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 10 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks 
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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 5.2 | 80 vs 60 category score; SciCode (AA) 67.7% vs 53.9% | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Fable 5.2 | 78 vs 61 category score; ARC-AGI-2 92.5% vs 72.1% | High |
| Knowledge | Claude Fable 5.2 | 82 vs 64 category score | High |
| Long documents | Claude Fable 5.2 | 66 vs 61 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 73.3% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Gemini 3.5 Flash has an Arena rating (67 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Gemini 3.5 Flash | $3.38 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.126 vs $0.640 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Claude Fable 5.2 | 3.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 12.4 s (Gemini 3.5 Flash (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 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 62.5.
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, instruction following, maths, multimodal.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) is 4.7× cheaper ($3.38 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) streams 2.5× faster (181 vs 72 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | |
| Released | 9 Nov 2026 | 19 May 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200 | $1.50 / $9.00 / $0.150 |
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 5.2 (max) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.4 | 60.7 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Coding | 80.2 | 59.7 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Agents & tools | – | 62.9 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 58.1 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 81.7 | 63.8 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Instruction following | – | 74.4 | not comparable |
| Human preference | – | 66.9 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 66.2 | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | 61.2 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.
ModelIndex
Where sources disagree
Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 10, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 69.4 | 62.5 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $16.00 | $3.38 |
| Input / output per 1M | $8.00 / $40.00 | $1.50 / $9.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.200 | $0.150 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.015 | $0.0033 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.120 | $0.023 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.108 | $0.022 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.640 | $0.126 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.024 | $0.0048 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.289 | $0.065 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $26.54 | – |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 274k | – |
| Of which reasoning | 193k | – |
| Output speed | 72 tok/s | 181 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 3.0 s | 12.4 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 27.4 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.2 (max) scores 69.4 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.2 (high) scores 68.9 in 3 s, Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) scores 68.7 in 3 s. Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) scores 62.5 and takes 12 s to its first answer token; Gemini 3.5 Flash (medium) scores 61.9 in 10 s, Gemini 3.5 Flash (minimal) scores 55.6 in 3 s. 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
139 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 5.2 (max) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 69.4 | 62.5 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 80.2 | 59.7 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 81.7 | 63.8 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 61.2 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.4 | 60.7 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 62.9 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 66.9 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 74.4 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 58.1 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 66.2 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $16.00 | $3.38 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 72 tok/s | 181 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 3.0 s | 12.4 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 92.8% |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | – | 76.7%† |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1496 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.8%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 82.0% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 92.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 74.3% | 42.7% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 80.2% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 92.7% |
| EnigmaEval | Scale AI SEAL | – | 25.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5% | 92.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 92.5% | 72.1% |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 94.9% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 35.4% | 13.1% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 51.8%† | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 45.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 32.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 47.1% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 94.7% |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | – | 64.4%† |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 79.3% |
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 53.9% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | – | 62.6% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1508 |
Show all 139 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Fable 5.2 (max) | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1500 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.2%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 78.2% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 67.7% | 53.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | – | 87.6% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 78.8% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 26.8% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 83.3%† | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 19.0%† | 0.0% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 62.3%† | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 93.8%† | 48.7% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 58.1%† |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 36.1% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 911.0 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 59.6% | 6.6% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 78.7% |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 49.4† |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 62.6 |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | – | 1266† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.2% | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.8% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 27.5%† |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 82.9%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 86.9%† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 49.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 40.9% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 95.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 74.2% |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | – | 83.6% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 27.7%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1831 | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 32.2% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 40.4% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 45.0% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 47.0% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 57.9% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 69.5%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 5.0%† | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 2.5% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.1%† | 30.8% |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | – | 52.7% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 32.1%† | 21.6% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 67.4% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 65.2%† | 6.1% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 55.7%† | 5.7% |
| Web Search Index | Vals AI | – | 37.0% |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 6.7%† |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 5396.4† |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 76.4% | 42.1% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.2% | 19.8% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 7.2% | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | – | 50.1% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1785 | 876 |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | – | 1168† |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 73.3% | – |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 62.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 26.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 31.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 88.2% |
| AIME 2026 | MathArena | – | 95.0%† |
| HMMT February 2026 | MathArena | – | 95.5%† |
| MathArena Apex | MathArena | – | 32.3%† |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1497 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 66.2% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 81.5%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 94.5%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 64.9% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 66.8 | – |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | – | 89.5% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | – | 83.6% |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 64.7% |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | – | 74.4% |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 83.7%† | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 63.5% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.4%† | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 55.8% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 76.6% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 59.5% |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 50.0% |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 4.8% |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 14.0%† |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 79.1% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 40.7% | – |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 67.7% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 84.6% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 75.6% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 76.3% |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1465 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1478 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1077† |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1465 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1483 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1308 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 85.1%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 84.3% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 88.3% |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | – | 68.1% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 33.6%† |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1271 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | 73.3% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1455 |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 10.0% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 155.2† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.9%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 74.6% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 64.6 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 32.6 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 305.1 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 71.3† | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 63.6%† | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 63.7%† | – |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | – | 62.9% |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): BenchLeader Index 63.2 → 62.6.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): cost per task moved from $3.69/M to $2.98/M (19% down).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 3 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score, AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy, AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination).
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 2 score revisions.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 1 new result (DrugDiscoveryBench).
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Gemini 3.5 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Gemini 3.5 Flash?
- Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 62.5. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Gemini 3.5 Flash is cheaper today: $3.38 against $16.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 3.5 Flash better for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?
- Gemini 3.5 Flash streams ~2× faster (181 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 61). Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.2 1,000,000, Gemini 3.5 Flash 1,048,576.
More questions (3)
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 12.4 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 5.2 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash?
- Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 10, Gemini 3.5 Flash leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
- When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
- Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.