Claude Fable 5.1vsGemini 3.0 Pro
Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $10.00 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $50.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.25 | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 90% | 31.1% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 81.2% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 76.2% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 89.1% | — |
SWE-Bench MultimodalMultimodal coding — Real bug reports that arrive with pictures attached — a screenshot, a mockup, a page rendering wrongly — so the AI has to read the image as well as the code to work out what to fix. Higher is better. | 54.7% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 62% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 55.8% | — |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 52.6% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 60.9% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 65% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.9% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 31.4% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 62.1% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1853 | — |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | 1694 | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Sep 1 2026 | Nov 18 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.1vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.0 ProvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Fable 5.1vsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.0 ProvsMuse GlimmerClaude Fable 5.1vsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.0 ProvsGrok 4.6Claude Fable 5.1vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.0 ProvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Fable 5.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.0 ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Fable 5.1vsKimi K3Gemini 3.0 ProvsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.1 leads Gemini 3.0 Pro on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (ARC-AGI-2). Only Claude Fable 5.1 has a verified first-party API price: $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Pro. Gemini 3.0 Pro shipped 287 days before Claude Fable 5.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On ARC-AGI-2, Claude Fable 5.1 leads at 90% vs Gemini 3.0 Pro at 31.1%.
Claude Fable 5.1 was released by Anthropic on Sep 1 2026.
Gemini 3.0 Pro was released by Google on Nov 18 2025.
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on ARC-AGI-2 — Claude Fable 5.1 90% vs Gemini 3.0 Pro 31.1%.
Only Claude Fable 5.1 has a verified first-party API price: $10.00 per million input tokens and $50.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.0 Pro. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on September 1, 2026.