Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 34.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 97.6% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 52.5% for Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2025-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1322 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 47.1% |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1324 |
| DTBench | 97.6% | 52.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 50.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.1 |
| LiveBench | — | 54.3% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1309 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.4% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.1% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1305 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 72% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50% |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | 1100 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1323 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1339 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1347 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1306 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1301 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1325 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1328 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1313 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 78.3% |
| IFEval | — | 82.4% |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1320 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1330 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1319 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1307 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| WildBench | — | 79% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 34.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32.