Skip to main content

AnthropicGoogle DeepMindLLM matchup

Claude Fable 5.2vs.Gemini 4 Carbon

Which one is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon perform about equally well, but Claude Fable 5.2 costs 4 times as much.

level
IntelligenceOverall index, 100 points = average
131.0

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 1

127.0

Gemini 4 Carbon

Rank 2

Gemini 4 Carbon cheaper
Price$ per 1M tokens
$16

Claude Fable 5.2

$4

Gemini 4 Carbon

Popularity0 to 100
76

Claude Fable 5.2

Rank 24 of 478

n/a

Gemini 4 Carbon

Choose Claude Fable 5.2 for

KnowledgeCodingAgents

No clear advantage for Gemini 4 Carbon.

Where is the difference?

Strengths at a glance

Fable 5.2Gemini 4 Carbon

The median of all ranked models is below 110 in every area, so it sits in the centre of the net.

120130140150110CodingFable 5.2ReasoninglevelKnowledgeFable 5.2AgentsFable 5.2FinancelevelLegallevel
CodingFable 5.2 ahead
Fable 5.2131.5Rank 1
Gemini 4 Carbon123.4Rank 5
Median of ranked models87.4

95 % range: Fable 5.2 122.0 to 141.1, Gemini 4 Carbon 115.5 to 131.4.

AreaFable 5.2Gemini 4 Carbon

The same values and verdicts as the bars below. In the close-up the net starts at 110 points, just below the weaker model's lowest value; the reference group average is 100. Not in the net because a model has no own value there or the data are too thin: Mathematics, General, Multimodal, Health.

Fable 5.2 is ahead in 3 of 9 areas, Gemini 4 Carbon in none.

Fable 5.2 ahead: 3level: 3too little data: 3

Areas in the overall index
KnowledgeFable 5.2 +10146.0 to 136.1
CodingFable 5.2 +8131.5 to 123.4
AgentsFable 5.2 +5124.1 to 119.1
Reasoninglevel124.9 to 122.7
Generaltoo little data132.8 to 134.0
Mathematicsonly Fable 5.2 has a score
Multimodalonly Gemini 4 Carbon has a score
Specialist fields
Legallevel120.9 to 123.8
Financelevel123.5 to 123.8

Bar length shows the gap in index points (full width 15 points, one standard deviation of the reference group). Solid means clearly ahead, hatched not certain yet, a thin grey bar level.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon at the same effort

Both models measured at the same reasoning efforts. This shows whether a lead comes from the model or only from more compute.

lowFable 5.2 slightly ahead
3.0 points gap across 9 shared test series
mediumtied
0.0 points gap across 9 shared test series
hightied
2.0 points gap across 10 shared test series
Overall index (max vs. high)Fable 5.2 slightly ahead
Fable 5.2 131.0 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon 127.0

The gap compares only the Artificial Analysis test series in which both models are measured at that effort. Tied below 3 points, ahead only beyond two standard errors.

Which model for which task?

Everyday tasks, translated from the area values above. Each row names the values it rests on.

Writing and debugging codeFable 5.2Coding 131.5 to 123.4
Maths and data analysislevelMathematics without a score for Gemini 4 Carbon, Reasoning 124.9 to 122.7
Facts and researchFable 5.2Knowledge 146.0 to 136.1
Agents and workflowsFable 5.2Agents 124.1 to 119.1
Many requests on a small budgetGemini 4 Carbon$16 to $4 per 1M tokens; from December 1 $16 to $8
Finance, legal and medical textslevelFinance 123.5 to 123.8, Legal 120.9 to 123.8
Images, screenshots and PDFsopenMultimodal without a score for Fable 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon in our own test

The same prompt for both models. We show the latest attempt without fixes; it does not count toward the overall index.

Pelican on a bicycle

Prompt

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Task origin: Simon Willison

Claude Fable 5.2

Not tested yet

Gemini 4 Carbon

Not tested yet

Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon in the overall index

Every model with a place in the overall index, both models of this matchup highlighted. You can add or hide other models.

Overall index (Gradually Meta-Score v5)

20 of 95 models

Claude Fable 5.2max131.0
Gemini 4 Carbonhigh127.0
Claude Opus 5.5max125.7
Claude Fable 5.1max124.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5max121.8
Gemini 4 Argonhigh121.4
GPT-6 Astramax120.2
Muse Wonder Fullmax118.1
GPT-6.1 Solmax118.0
Claude Opus 5max117.4
Muse Wondermax113.4
Claude Fable 5max112.8
Kimi K3.1 Promax112.6
Muse Ember 1.0max110.4
GPT-6 Solmax109.1
GPT-5.6 Solmax109.1
Gemini 3.7 Flashhigh107.9
Muse Spark 1.3max107.3
Gemini 3.8 Flashhigh106.8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017max106.7

Popularity compared

How often the models are searched for, used and mentioned, on a scale from 0 to 100.

Gemini 4 Carbon has no popularity score yet.

Over time

The timeline appears once both models have two values.

All data side by side

The better value is bold. For the overall index only when the gap is clear.

MetricClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 4 Carbon
Intelligence
Overall indexpoints, 100 = reference group average, higher is better131.0127.0
RankRank 1 of 95Rank 2 of 95
Price per 1M tokens
Inputwhat you send$8$2
Outputwhat the model writes$40$10
Speed
Tokens per secondn/an/a
Popularity
Popularitysearch, usage and mentions, 0 to 10076Rank 24 of 478n/a
Technical
Context windowhow much text the model reads at once1 M tokens≈ 1,500 A4 pages1.05 M tokens≈ 1,570 A4 pages
Knowledge cutoffJune 2026March 2026
ReleasedNov 9, 2026Nov 10, 2026
AvailabilityActiveActive
Open weightsnono
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Batch pricing: $4 input and $20 output per million tokens, separate from standard API pricing. Source
  • Claude Fable 5.2, Fast pricing: $16 input and $80 output per million tokens. Fast is a separate serving mode. Source
  • Gemini 4 Carbon, Standard rates from December: From December 1, 2026, input, output, and cache hits cost $4, $20, and $0.20 per 1M tokens. Source
  • Gemini 4 Carbon, Billing: The output price includes reasoning tokens. Cached input rates apply to implicit caching. Explicit caching is not supported. Source
  • Gemini 4 Carbon, Artificial Analysis pricing assumptions: Artificial Analysis calculates test costs using $4 input, $20 output, and $0.20 cached input per 1M tokens. Source

Prices without caching or batch discounts · Page count as a rule of thumb from Artificial Analysis

Shared benchmarks

Single results from the same benchmark version, task and metric. A value is bold only with the same test setup and a clear gap.

No directly comparable result yet

No published benchmark for Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon currently matches in version, task and metric. We therefore show no estimated or blended values.

More comparisons

Compare Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon with the models people compare them with most often.

Compare another matchup

The most popular comparisons

  1. 1Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Kimi K3
  2. 2Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Gemini 3.8 Flash
  3. 3Gemini 4 Carbon vs. GLM-5.3
  4. 4Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  5. 5Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Opus 5.5
  6. 6Claude Fable 5.2 vs. Claude Haiku 5.5
  7. 7GPT-6 Astra vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  8. 8Claude Opus 5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  9. 9Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Show all 29 comparisons
  1. 10Claude Fable 5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  2. 11GPT-6.1 Terra vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  3. 12GPT-6.1 Sol vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  4. 13Claude Fable 5.1 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  5. 14Claude Opus 4.5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  6. 15GPT-6 Sol vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  7. 16Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Mistral Large 4
  8. 17Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  9. 18Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  10. 19Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  11. 20Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Gemini 3.5 Flash
  12. 21Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Grok 4.7
  13. 22Claude Haiku 5.5 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  14. 23Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Qwen 3.8 27B
  15. 24Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs. Gemini 4 Carbon
  16. 25Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Gemini 3.6 Flash
  17. 26Gemini 4 Carbon vs. DeepSeek-V4-Flash
  18. 27Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Gemini 3.7 Flash
  19. 28Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Grok 4.5
  20. 29Gemini 4 Carbon vs. Grok 4.6