Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.0 Pro
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Gemini 2.0 Pro in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 22.3.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 39.1 |
| 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 | 14 |
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 Pro: 37.8 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 35.6% |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 63.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Pro: 22.3 (#198)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | 135.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 0.7% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 60.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 68% |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 65.1% |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 71% |
| LMArena Math | 1525 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 83.5% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 18.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | — |
| LMArena French | 1525 | — |
| LMArena German | 1500 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 83.4% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | — |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 2.0 Pro?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 2.0 Pro better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 2.0 Pro share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14.