Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.
shared result series
151
distinct benchmarks
28
latest retrieval
2026-09-04
Change model selection
Specifications
General specifications
Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.
Specifications for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.
API pricing for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Pricing by provider
Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.
Provider pricing for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.
Capability profile from matched benchmarks
Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Coding: 100 / 57.7 (6 benchmark families)
Reasoning: 99.2 / 97.2 (3 benchmark families)
Mathematics: 100 / 62.5 (2 benchmark families)
Knowledge: 100 / 99 (2 benchmark families)
Finance: 99.9 / 88.4 (6 benchmark families)
Legal: 100 / 59.9 (4 benchmark families)
Agentic tasks: 100 / 87.9 (1 benchmark family)
Multimodal: 100 / 98.8 (1 benchmark family)
56 matched rows from 26 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 8 of 13 comparable categories.
Claude Fable 5Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Code MigrationOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner55.065 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview17.313 %
CorpFin v2Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner71.834 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview64.491 %
EMBOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner73.666 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview52.616 %
EnigmaEvalOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5No clear lead39.28% ± 2.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview36.78% ± 2.71
Finance Agent (v2)Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner56.314 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview42.982 %
GPQA DiamondOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 593.182 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewWinner95.454 %
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkOverall · Task fully resolved. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner11.25 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview0 %
Legal Research BenchOverall · All-pass. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner49.519 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview20.673 %
LegalBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner88.561 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview87.398 %
LiveCodeBench v6Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner89.778 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview88.485 %
LMArena Text, Style ControlOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 5Winner1,507.405
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview1,486.746
MedCodeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Fable 556.07 %
Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewWinner59.062 %
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Benchmark scores for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Benchmark and task
Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Source
Code MigrationOverallTest details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is better
No documented difference in the test setupNo clear leadVersion: open-source release 2026-07-23Metric: pass@1 accuracyScoring: Higher is betterClaude Fable 5: Snapshot: claude-fable-5-high, Reasoning: high, Attempts: pass@1 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high, Reasoning: high, Attempts: pass@1Complex multimodal puzzles with exact answer matching and one attempt.
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: style-control-v1Metric: style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratingScoring: Higher is betterClaude Fable 5: Snapshot: claude-fable-5, Harness: Arena text, style control Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Harness: Arena text, style controlClaude Fable 5: Style-controlled Arena rating from 26,977 anonymous pairwise votes.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Style-controlled Arena rating from 102,763 anonymous pairwise votes.
Winner1,507.405
95% confidence interval: ±4.978The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
1,486.746
95% confidence interval: ±3.217The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: full finance setMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterClaude Fable 5: Snapshot: claude-fable-5-max, Reasoning: max, Attempts: pass@1 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Attempts: pass@1600 finance tasks with task-specific rubrics and o4-mini as judge.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: full legal setMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterClaude Fable 5: Snapshot: claude-fable-5-max, Reasoning: max, Attempts: pass@1 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Attempts: pass@1500 legal tasks with task-specific rubrics and o4-mini as judge.
LMArena Text, Style ControlBusiness, management and financeTest details
No documented difference in the test setupVersion: style-control-v1Metric: style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratingScoring: Higher is betterClaude Fable 5: Snapshot: claude-fable-5, Harness: Arena text, style control Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Harness: Arena text, style controlClaude Fable 5: Style-controlled Arena rating from 5,567 anonymous pairwise votes.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Style-controlled Arena rating from 20,283 anonymous pairwise votes.
Winner1,501.942
95% confidence interval: ±8.642The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
1,476.52
95% confidence interval: ±5.472The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: 2.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterGemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Reasoning: high, Temperature: 1, Output limit: 65,536 tokens
No documented difference in the test setupNo clear leadVersion: style-control-v1Metric: style-controlled Bradley-Terry ratingScoring: Higher is betterClaude Fable 5: Snapshot: claude-fable-5, Harness: Arena text, style control Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Snapshot: gemini-3.1-pro-preview, Harness: Arena text, style controlClaude Fable 5: Style-controlled Arena rating from 1,671 anonymous pairwise votes.Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Style-controlled Arena rating from 6,195 anonymous pairwise votes.
No clear lead1,554.267
95% confidence interval: ±15.295The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
1,530.803
95% confidence interval: ±8.555The Arena score measures human preference rather than a fixed capability test. The confidence interval and model configuration are part of the result.
Test setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: 2.1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterGemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Reasoning: high, Temperature: 1, Output limit: 65,536 tokens
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Our model tests
Community tests you can inspect
Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the first attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. These results do not contribute to an overall score.
Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.
Claude Fable 5
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.First attempt
Run date
7 Sept 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
anthropic/claude-fable-5
API model reported in response
anthropic/claude-fable-5
Pinned endpoint
Anthropic | anthropic/claude-5-fable-20260609
Reasoning setting
high
Temperature
Provider default
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Passed, not a quality rating
Response time
53.1 s
Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
API access was unavailable for this run. The model was not evaluated.
First attempt
Run date
7 Sept 2026
API provider
openrouter
Requested API model
google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Pinned endpoint
Google AI Studio | google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview-20260219
Reasoning setting
high
Temperature
Provider default
Token limit including reasoning
8,192 tokens
Test protocol
community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks
Not run
Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.
Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.
The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.
Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.
More matchups
Related LLM comparisons
Compare Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.
