BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Gemini 3.7 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 3.7 Flash on quality (69.4 vs 62.2 on the BenchLeader Index), but Gemini 3.7 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.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Gemini 3.7 Flash scores 62.2 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash costs $1.50 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 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 3.7 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 63 category score; SciCode (AA) 67.7% vs 57.2%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 68 category score; ARC-AGI-2 92.5% vs 84.6%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 5.282 vs 67 category scoreHigh
Long documentsEither66 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 81.7%Either
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Gemini 3.7 Flash has an Arena rating (68 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costGemini 3.7 Flash$1.50 vs $16.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.060 vs $0.640–
Fastest first answerEither3.0 s (Claude Fable 5.2 (max)) vs 2.4 s (Gemini 3.7 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 62.2.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high) is 11× cheaper ($1.50 vs $16.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 3.7 Flash
DeveloperAnthropicGoogle
Released9 Nov 202613 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200$0.750 / $3.75 / $0.075

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 3.7 Flash (high)Leader
Reasoning78.467.9Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.262.7Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–48.0not comparable
Maths–62.9not comparable
Knowledge81.766.5Claude Fable 5.2
Human preference–68.2not comparable
Multimodal–67.2not comparable
Long context66.465.6level

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 3.7 Flash, Reasoning: 67.9Gemini 3.7 Flash, Coding: 62.7Gemini 3.7 Flash, Knowledge: 66.5Gemini 3.7 Flash, Long context: 65.6

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 3.7 Flash leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)Leader
BenchLeader Index69.462.2Claude 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 3.7 Flash (high)
Blended price per 1M tokens$16.00$1.50
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00$0.750 / $3.75
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/s92 tok/s
Time to first answer3.0 s2.4 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 3.7 Flash (high) scores 62.2 and takes 2 s to its first answer token; Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium) scores 60.2 in 2 s, Gemini 3.7 Flash (low) scores 57.4 in 2 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 3.7 Flash (high)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.462.2
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.262.7
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.766.5
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.465.6
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.467.9
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–48.0
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–68.2
Maths scoreBenchLeader–62.9
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–67.2
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00$1.50
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s92 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s2.4 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–94.8%
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1510
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–87.8%
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–94.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%47.9%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%–
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–93.9%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%95.5%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%84.6%
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%14.3%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–66.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–37.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–50.4%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–96.8%
ForecastBenchForecastBench–66.2%
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–57.2%
FrontierCodeCognition–43.6%†
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1520
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1588
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–78.9%
Show all 121 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Gemini 3.7 Flash (high)
Coding
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%57.2%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–88.7%
IOIVals AI–67.8%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–80.8%
Code MigrationVals AI–34.8%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†0.0%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†70.4%
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–41.1%
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–65.3%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–904.3
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–20.3%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%13.6%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–85.8%
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena–1300†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench–12.4%
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS–5.0%†
APEX-AgentsMercor–67.8%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–-1.9
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–58.3%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–77.5%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1831–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–32.8%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–60.0%
CyberBenchVals AI–43.8%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–59.0%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–8.8%
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†34.6%
SkillsBenchVals AI–65.9%
SREBenchVals AI–4.6%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†22.8%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†12.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†7.1%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%62.0%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%23.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%–
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–50.4%†
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1785–
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena–1218†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–71.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–36.6%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–97.2%
ProofBenchVals AI–58.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–93.5%
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1502
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–69.2%
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–68.0%
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.8–
MMLU-ProVals AI–90.1%
LegalBenchVals AI–87.3%
TaxEvalVals AI–74.7%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–71.3%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†–
MedCodeVals AI–53.4%
MedScribeVals AI–83.9%
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–23.8%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%–
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–85.5%
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–79.9%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1486
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1489
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1487
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1490
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1501
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1313
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis–85.5%
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI–89.0%
MortgageTaxVals AI–66.7%
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%81.7%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1468
MLCRArtificial Analysis–12.2%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–158.4†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–78.8%
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.6–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–39.1
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–317.4
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–18.3%
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†–

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 1 score revision.
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 1 new result (Arena Document).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 1 new result (MirrorCode).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 2 new results (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1, Vals RSI Index).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): input price moved from $0.38/M to $0.75/M (97% up); output price moved from $1.88/M to $3.75/M (99% up).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 1 score revision; input price moved from $0.75/M to $0.38/M (49% down); output price moved from $3.75/M to $1.88/M (50% down).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 1 new result (ForecastBench).
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): BenchLeader Index 60.8 → 62.6.
  • Gemini 3.7 Flash (high): 18 new results (AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2, GPQA Diamond (AA), Humanity's Last Exam (AA)…).

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

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Gemini 3.7 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 62.2. 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 3.7 Flash: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper today: $1.50 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 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 3.7 Flash?
Gemini 3.7 Flash streams faster (92 vs 72 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 66). Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Fable 5.2 1,000,000, Gemini 3.7 Flash 1,048,576.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
Gemini 3.7 Flash answers first: 2.4 s against 3.0 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 3.7 Flash?
Across the 9 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 9, Gemini 3.7 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.