BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Gemini 3.6 Flash (Google): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Gemini 3.6 Flash on quality (69.4 vs 61.2 on the BenchLeader Index), but Gemini 3.6 Flash is 11× cheaper at $1.50 vs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in. Gemini 3.6 Flash's current price runs until 31 Dec 2026, then $3.00.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 61.2 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash costs $1.50 per 1M tokens blended until 31 Dec 2026, then $3.00 (https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing, checked 20 Oct 2026).
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash streams ~2× faster than Claude Fable 5.2 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 9 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 9 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks max Anthropic Gemini 3.6 Flash benchmarks high GoogleAdd a third model

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 casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Fable 5.280 vs 57 category score; SciCode (AA) 67.7% vs 53.4%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 64 category score; ARC-AGI-2 92.5% vs 60.4%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5.282 vs 64 category scoreHigh
Long documentsClaude Fable 5.266 vs 65 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 80.0%Medium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Gemini 3.6 Flash has an Arena rating (67 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costGemini 3.6 Flash$1.50 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.060 vs $0.640; from 1 Jan 2027: $3.00 vs $16.00–
Fastest first answerClaude Fable 5.23.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 14.8 s (Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA 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 61.2.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) is 11× cheaper ($1.50 vs $16.00 per 1M blended) until 31 Dec 2026, then $3.00 vs $16.00 from 1 Jan 2027.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) streams 2.6× faster (190 vs 72 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 3.6 Flash
DeveloperAnthropicGoogle
Released9 Nov 202621 Jul 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200$0.750 / $3.75 / $0.075
Announced price changeNone announced$1.50 / $7.50 / $0.150 from 1 Jan 2027

Limits, availability and announced prices from the vendors' own pages: ai.google.dev pricing (checked 20 Oct 2026). Everything else is from the day's data.

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.

CategoryClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)Leader
Reasoning78.463.7Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.257.0Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–59.3not comparable
Maths–59.2not comparable
Knowledge81.764.1Claude Fable 5.2
Human preference–67.4not comparable
Multimodal–65.0not comparable
Long context66.464.7Claude 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.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingKnowledgeLong contextClaude Fable 5.2, Reasoning: 78.4Claude Fable 5.2, Coding: 80.2Claude Fable 5.2, Knowledge: 81.7Claude Fable 5.2, Long context: 66.4Gemini 3.6 Flash, Reasoning: 63.7Gemini 3.6 Flash, Coding: 57.0Gemini 3.6 Flash, Knowledge: 64.1Gemini 3.6 Flash, Long context: 64.7

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 9 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 9, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.461.2Claude 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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)
Blended price per 1M tokens, until 31 Dec 2026$16.00$1.50
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00$0.750 / $3.75
Blended price per 1M from 1 Jan 2027$16.00$3.00
Input / output per 1M from 1 Jan 2027$8.00 / $40.00$1.50 / $7.50
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.075
Price per task: chat reply$0.015$0.0014
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.120$0.011
Price per task: code edit$0.108$0.010
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.640$0.060
Price per task: structured extraction$0.024$0.0023
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.289$0.030
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$26.54–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)274k–
Of which reasoning193k–
Output speed72 tok/s190 tok/s
Time to first answer3.0 s14.8 s
Time to a complete answer–31.4 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 3.6 Flash (high) scores 61.2 and takes 15 s to its first answer token; Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49.6 in 1 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

121 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.

MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.461.2
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.257.0
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.764.1
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.464.7
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.463.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–59.3
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–67.4
Maths scoreBenchLeader–59.2
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–65.0
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00$1.50
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s190 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s14.8 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–94.1%
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1501
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–85.2%
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–92.8%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%40.8%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%–
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–93.4%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%91.2%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%60.4%
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%10.6%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–40.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–30.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–44.9%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–95.5%
ForecastBenchForecastBench–65.9%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–53.4%
WeirdMLWeirdML–56.1%
FrontierCodeCognition–34.4%†
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1518
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1538
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†–
Show all 121 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.6 Flash (high)
Coding
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–77.9%
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%53.4%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–88.1%
IOIVals AI–35.1%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–79.6%
Code MigrationVals AI–30.9%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†0.0%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†64.0%
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–46.7%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–715.5
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%7.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–77.5%
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 2–50.6†
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 2–62.8
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena–1295†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%–
Agents & tools
APEX-AgentsMercor–46.9%†
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–43.4%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–73.8%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1831–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–29.9%
CyberBenchVals AI–45.4%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–56.3%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–3.3%
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†25.0%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†18.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†4.3%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%53.0%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%17.4%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1785–
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena–1171†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–59.0%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–21.9%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–94.2%
ProofBenchVals AI–36.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–86.4%
AIME 2026MathArena–96.7%†
HMMT February 2026MathArena–89.4%†
MathArena ApexMathArena–26.0%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1501
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–66.2%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–63.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.8–
MMLU-ProVals AI–89.3%
LegalBenchVals AI–86.7%
CorpFinVals AI–63.3%
TaxEvalVals AI–74.9%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†58.5%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–65.4%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†–
MedCodeVals AI–53.1%
MedScribeVals AI–79.7%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–56.6%
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–14.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%–
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–83.9%
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–75.4%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1473
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1483
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1471
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1489
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1485
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1297
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis–83.2%
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI–88.4%
MortgageTaxVals AI–67.6%
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–31.2%†
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%80.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1454
MLCRArtificial Analysis–10.0%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–155.2†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–73.6%
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.6–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–34.0
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–305.7
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†–
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†–
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI–65.1%

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 3.6 Flash: list price moves to $1.50 / $7.50 per 1M input / output tokens (announced).
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): BenchLeader Index 61.8 → 61.2.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1).
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 3 new results (AutomationBench, GDP.pdf (AA), MLCR).
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): BenchLeader Index 61.0 → 61.8.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
  • Gemini 3.6 Flash (high): 1 score revision.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 61.2. 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 3.6 Flash: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper today: $1.50 against $16.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. Gemini 3.6 Flash's current price runs until 31 Dec 2026, then $3.00.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 3.6 Flash better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Gemini 3.6 Flash streams ~2× faster (190 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 65). Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.2 1,000,000, Gemini 3.6 Flash 1,048,576.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
Claude Fable 5.2 answers first: 3.0 s against 14.8 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 3.6 Flash?
Across the 9 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 9, Gemini 3.6 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.