Claude Fable 5vsGemini 3.6 Flash
Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context window | 1M | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 54% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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. | 80.3% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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. | 95.5% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 72.9% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 70%Best | 49% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | 66.1% | — |
ML engineering MLE-BenchCan the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | — | 63.9% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel'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. | 92% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 88% | — |
Browser agent BU BenchCan the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 68% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 86.9% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity'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. | 64.5% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 85%Best | 83% |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 11.25% | — |
Tax questions TaxEval v2A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | 76.94% | — |
Medical admin work MedScribeCan the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | 88.52% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1932 | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1760Best | 1421 |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1509 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1631 | — |
| Timeline | ||
| Release gap | Claude Fable 5 shipped 42 days before Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | |
| Release date | Jun 9 2026 | Jul 21 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Claude Fable 5 leads Gemini 3.6 Flash on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, OSWorld-Verified, GDPval-AA v2). Claude Fable 5 shipped 42 days before Gemini 3.6 Flash, 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 DeepSWE 1.1, Claude Fable 5 leads at 70% vs Gemini 3.6 Flash at 49%. On OSWorld-Verified, Claude Fable 5 leads at 85% vs Gemini 3.6 Flash at 83%. On GDPval-AA v2, Claude Fable 5 leads at 1760 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash at 1421.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5 was released by Anthropic on Jun 9 2026.
Gemini 3.6 Flash was released by Google on Jul 21 2026.
Claude Fable 5 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Claude Fable 5 70% vs Gemini 3.6 Flash 49%.
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Fable 5vsMuse Spark 1.1Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.1Claude Fable 5vsGrok 4.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.5Claude Fable 5vsDeepSeek-V4-ProGemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-ProClaude Fable 5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Fable 5vsKimi K3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsKimi K3