Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.2 | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort | #14 of 2266.5 score |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 36-model eligible cohort | #10 of 36$0.055 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.0 | UnrankedNot in the 22-model eligible cohort | #5 of 2261.6 score |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1verified-v1-2aa739d957fc · verified_score · leader | 97.50100% of row best · percent · Claude Fable 5.1 (Max) | 91.1794% of row best · percent · Gemini 3.6 Flash (High) |
| ARC-AGI-2verified-v2-b5cb5ec6e8c7 · verified_score · leader | 90.00100% of row best · percent · Claude Fable 5.1 (XHigh) | 60.4267% of row best · percent · Gemini 3.6 Flash (High) |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Claude 5 1 | Gemini 3 |
| Model | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
| Version | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 7 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Claude Fable 5.1 Capabilities
Gemini 3.6 Flash Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Fable 5Anthropic | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash FAQs
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 3.6 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?+
Claude Fable 5.1 is $10.00 and Gemini 3.6 Flash is $0.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Fable 5.1 is $50.00 and Gemini 3.6 Flash is $3.75 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?+
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1,000K and Gemini 3.6 Flash supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.
Can Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Fable 5.1 is not marked open weight; Gemini 3.6 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 3.6 Flash understand images?+
Claude Fable 5.1 is documented with image input; Gemini 3.6 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?+
Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Fable 5.1 supports 128K and Gemini 3.6 Flash supports 66K output tokens.
Do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 3.6 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Fable 5.1: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Gemini 3.6 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?+
Claude Fable 5.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Gemini 3.6 Flash has 2, so Gemini 3.6 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.