BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases9

Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3 Pro

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) and Gemini 3 Pro (Google): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 17 sources

As of 26 Oct 2026, Claude Fable 5 (max) is the better pick for most workloads: it leads on quality (69.3 vs 60.4 on the BenchLeader Index). Claude Fable 5 leads in every category we measure both in.

Claude Fable 5 benchmarks max Anthropic Gemini 3 Pro benchmarks GoogleOpen in the comparison tool

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 574 vs 58 category score; WeirdML 91.9% vs 69.9%High
Agents & tool useClaude Fable 565 vs 62 category score; Terminal-Bench 44.5% vs 69.4%Medium
MathsClaude Fable 572 vs 54 category score; OTIS Mock AIME 99.7% vs 91.4%High
ReasoningClaude Fable 574 vs 66 category score; SimpleBench 81.9% vs 76.4%High
KnowledgeClaude Fable 581 vs 56 category scoreHigh
Following instructionsClaude Fable 563 vs 60 category scoreMedium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Gemini 3 Pro has an Arena rating (68 category score)Not comparable
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 60.4.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning.
  • Gemini 3 Pro is stronger in human preference, multimodal.

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5Gemini 3 Pro
DeveloperAnthropicGoogle
Released9 Jun 202618 Nov 2025
Context window (tokens)1,000,000–
Compared atClaude Fable 5 (max)Gemini 3 Pro
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00–

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.

CategoryClaude Fable 5 (max)Gemini 3 ProLeader
Reasoning73.865.6Claude Fable 5
Coding73.857.9Claude Fable 5
Agents & tools65.061.8Claude Fable 5
Maths72.454.3Claude Fable 5
Knowledge81.056.0Claude Fable 5
Instruction following63.160.4Claude Fable 5
Human preference–67.8not comparable
Multimodal–65.6not comparable
Long context66.3–not comparable
Composite85.0–not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 7, Gemini 3 Pro leads 3. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5 (max)Gemini 3 ProLeader
BenchLeader Index69.360.4Claude Fable 5
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.249.622.3†Claude Fable 5
Arena Text1503†1486Claude Fable 5

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.

MeasureClaude Fable 5 (max)Gemini 3 Pro
Blended price per 1M tokens$20.00–
Input / output per 1M$10.00 / $50.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$1.00–
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$8.75–
Output speed65 tok/s–
Time to first answer90.4 s–
Time to a complete answer98.0 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5 (max) scores 69.3 and takes 90 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5 scores 66.6 in 4 s, Claude Fable 5 (high) scores 64.4 in 4 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

161 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 (max)Gemini 3 Pro
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.360.4
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader65.061.8
Coding scoreBenchLeader73.857.9
Composite scoreBenchLeader85.0–
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader63.160.4
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.056.0
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.3–
Maths scoreBenchLeader72.454.3
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader73.865.6
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–67.8
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–65.6
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$20.00–
Output speedBenchLeader65 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader90.4 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens–
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub85.9%92.6%
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS–37.5%
SimpleBenchSimpleBench81.9%76.4%
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1529†1502
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.7%–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis92.6%90.8%†
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis55.5%39.7%†
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI93.2%†91.7%†
EnigmaEvalScale AI SEAL39.3%†–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark88.8%†80.1%
GPQA Diamond (HELM)HELM Capabilities–80.3%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize98.5%75.0%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize89.2%54.0%
CritPtArtificial Analysis28.6%9.1%†
SciPredictScale AI SEAL–25.3%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.0%–
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–15.8%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub60.3%–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.4%–
ForecastBenchForecastBench66.0%65.3%
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub13.0%†–
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–72.9%
SciCodeSciCode61.0%–
WeirdMLWeirdML91.9%69.9%
Show all 161 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5 (max)Gemini 3 Pro
Coding
FrontierCodeCognition53.5%†–
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench78.4%†18.6%
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1551†1517
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1624†1440
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench86.0%–
LiveCodeBenchVals AI89.8%†86.4%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI95.0%†76.4%†
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL–43.3%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)SWE-bench–74.2%
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)SWE-bench–77.4%
Code MigrationVals AI55.1%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI2.0%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%†14.3%†
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL–43.3%
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL39.0%†–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL54.8%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL55.6%†–
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub63.9%†–
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.0%†–
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub69.7%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2041.3†1176.8
AlgoTuneAlgoTune–1.8
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis42.4%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis84.6%–
Startrise FrontendStartrise73.8%†–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench44.5%69.4%
GDPvalOpenAI–40.3%
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS15.8%†1.3%
APEX-AgentsMercor63.6%†–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)7.8†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench62.2%–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis62.9%41.7%†
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis98.5%87.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI80.5%†–
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL83.3%†70.3%
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL56.3%†–
BFCL OverallBerkeley Function Calling Leaderboard–72.5%
τ²-benchτ²-bench–82.5%†
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench39.7%18.0%†
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis38.1%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%–
Finance Agent v2Vals AI56.3%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI11.3%†–
Legal Research BenchVals AI49.5%†–
Poker AgentVals AI–1078.9%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI38.3%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI–55.1%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI41.4%†–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI15.7%†–
Web Search IndexVals AI46.9%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1229†–
BALROGBALROG–58.1%
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench–46.3%†
PostTrainBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub41.8%–
METR Time HorizonsMETR–71.0%
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub74.5%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs4966.65478.2
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis54.1%–
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.0%–
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis51.1%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1537–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub87.0%–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.2%–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.7%91.4%
ProofBenchVals AI95.0%20.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench96.0%–
AIME (Vals)Vals AI–96.7%†
MGSMVals AI–93.9%†
AIME 2026MathArena–91.7%
HMMT February 2026MathArena–86.4%
MathArena ApexMathArena–23.4%
Omni-MATH (HELM)HELM Capabilities–55.6%
MATH 500Vals AI–96.4%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1521†1477
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub70.7%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.5%–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis43.315.3†
MMLU-ProVals AI91.5%†90.1%
LegalBenchVals AI88.6%†87.0%†
CorpFinVals AI71.8%†63.7%†
TaxEvalVals AI76.9%†72.6%†
MedQAVals AI–96.0%†
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL53.9%†39.2%
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL52.6%†40.6%
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL–59.0%
MMLU-Pro (HELM)HELM Capabilities–90.3%
CaseLaw v2Vals AI–53.1%†
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI73.7%†–
MedCodeVals AI56.1%†52.2%†
MedScribeVals AI88.5%†72.0%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI70.4%†–
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub39.5%–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub29.8%–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis65.3%55.8%†
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis36.4%8.6%†
Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)Artificial Analysis–92.2%†
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench90.7%–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench75.8%–
IFBenchArtificial Analysis63.5%70.4%†
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL–65.7%
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL–53.7%
IFEval (HELM)HELM Capabilities–87.6%
WildBench (HELM)HELM Capabilities–85.9%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1508†1473
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1503†1486
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1310†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1501†1485
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1517†1496
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1522†1491
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1325†1305
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis–80.2%†
VISTAScale AI SEAL–51.5%
MMMU-Pro (official)MMMU–81.0%
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI89.3%†87.5%†
MortgageTaxVals AI68.9%†69.1%†
SAGEVals AI51.9%†47.6%†
AudioMCScale AI SEAL–54.6%†
AudioMC (text output)Scale AI SEAL–54.6%†
VTBScale AI SEAL–26.9%
GeoBenchGeoBench–84.0%
VPCTEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–91.0%
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub38.6%†–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis82.3%76.0%†
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1499†1451
MLCRArtificial Analysis20.6%–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub163.4†153.1
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.0%–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis49.628.0†
HELM Capabilities meanHELM Capabilities–79.9%
Vals RSI IndexVals AI24.3%–
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI74.2%†–
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL–41.7%
MASKScale AI SEAL–42.6%
PropensityBenchScale AI SEAL–52.9%
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial 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 (max): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
  • Gemini 3 Pro: 1 score revision.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 new result (ForecastBench).
  • Gemini 3 Pro: 1 score revision.
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 4 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Omniscience: accuracy, AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination…).
  • Claude Fable 5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Gemini 3 Pro: 1 new result (PRBench Legal).
  • Gemini 3 Pro: 1 new result (VTB).
  • Gemini 3 Pro: 2 new results (PRBench Legal, MultiNRC).

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

Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3 Pro: questions

Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemini 3 Pro?
Claude Fable 5 (max) leads on quality: 69.3 vs 60.4. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-26, but check the category scores for your use.
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemini 3 Pro for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher in coding (74 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average). On WeirdML, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 91.9% for Claude Fable 5 against 69.9% for Gemini 3 Pro.
Is Claude Fable 5 better than Gemini 3 Pro for agents and tool use?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (65 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 44.5% for Claude Fable 5 against 69.4% for Gemini 3 Pro.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3 Pro?
Across the 10 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5 leads 7, Gemini 3 Pro leads 3. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5 ahead.
When was Claude Fable 5 released?
Claude Fable 5 was released on 9 Jun 2026.