Anthropic vs Google · synced 2026-08-11

claude-fable-5 vs gemini-3.5-flash

gemini-3.5-flash is 6.7× cheaper on input than claude-fable-5.

claude-fable-5 gemini-3.5-flash
Input / 1M $10.00 $1.50
Cached input / 1M $1.00 $0.15
Output / 1M $50.00 $9.00
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 66K
Provider Anthropic Google
Vision Yes Yes
Tool calling Yes Yes
Token count estimated estimated

Capability for the money

Independent measurement · Artificial Analysis · read 2026-08-11

gemini-3.5-flash is 5.9× cheaper than claude-fable-5 and scores higher on following instructions (IFBench) — there is no case for paying more here.

  1. Following instructions

    extraction, classification, sticking to a format

    IFBench
    claude-fable-563.5%
    gemini-3.5-flash76.3%

    gemini-3.5-flash +12.8

  2. Tool use

    multi-step agent work against real tools

    τ²-bench
    claude-fable-598.5%
    gemini-3.5-flash95.3%

    claude-fable-5 +3.2

  3. Hard reasoning

    graduate-level science and multi-step analysis

    GPQA Diamond
    claude-fable-592.6%
    gemini-3.5-flash92.2%

    claude-fable-5 +0.4

Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, gemini-3.5-flash returns 26.1 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 4.2 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.

Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. No published coding score for one of these models, so that lens is omitted. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.

Which to pick

List price is not production cost. Output length, cache hit rate, retries and task quality move the real number more than the headline rate does — price your own prompt on the token ledger before deciding.

Related comparisons