Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.5
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Claude Fable 5 is meaningfully stronger at reasoning (98 vs 88 on our capability index).
- •Gemini 3.5 is meaningfully stronger at speed (90 vs 55).
- •Gemini 3.5 is 85% cheaper on input tokens, which compounds fast on high-volume or agentic workloads.
- •Claude Fable 5 has a 1M context window vs 1,048,576 tokens (Gemini 3.5 Flash; Pro variant not yet released) - better for whole-repo or long-document work.
Specs comparison
| Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google DeepMind |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | ✓1M | 1,048,576 tokens (Gemini 3.5 Flash; Pro variant not yet released) |
| Input / 1M tokens | $10.00 | ✓$1.50 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $50.00 | $9.00 |
| Release date | 2026-06 | 2026-05 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 95.0% | - |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 88.0% | - |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.6% | - |
| SWE-bench Pro | 80.3% | - |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (coding) | - | 76.2% |
| MCP Atlas (tool use) | - | 83.6% |
| CharXiv Reasoning (multimodal) | - | 84.2% |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.
Which should you choose?
Choose Claude Fable 5 if...
- →You need the absolute highest capability Anthropic offers for hard tasks
- →You run long, complex autonomous agents where quality compounds over many steps
- →You do frontier-level engineering, research, or analytics and cost is secondary
- →You want maximum accuracy on the toughest coding and reasoning benchmarks
Choose Gemini 3.5 if...
- →You need frontier agent/coding performance without frontier prices
- →Building autonomous agents that make many tool calls
- →High-throughput production workloads that were previously too costly on a Pro model
- →You want a strong default multimodal model with a 1M-token context window