ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Claude Fable 5

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview comes out ahead, 68 to 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

    Released Feb 19, 2026

    68/100
    • ECI154.8
    • Price$2.00 / $12.00
    • Context1.05M
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Fable 5

    Released Jun 9, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI162.2
    • Price$10.00 / $50.00
    • Context1M
  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is our pick

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Claude Fable 5 (65). It leads on price and inputs & features. Claude Fable 5 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Fable 5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5 162.2 · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 154.8
  • Lowest priceGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.1 Pro Preview $4.50 · Claude Fable 5 $20.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.1 Pro Preview 1,048,576 · Claude Fable 5 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.1 Pro Preview: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Claude Fable 5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewClaude Fable 5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8494
Price25%190
Inputs & features15%10080
Context window10%6160
Overall100%68/10065/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Claude Fable 5 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGoogleClaude Fable 5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)154.8162.2 (best)
ECI rank#31 of 148#7 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions94.4% (best)85.9%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics59.7%87.0% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics95.6%100% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues75.6%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions73.5% (best)70.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$2.00 (best)$10.00
Output$12.00 (best)$50.00
Cached input$0.20 (best)$1.00
Blended (3:1)$4.50 (best)$20.00
Long-context rateOver 200K: $4.00 / $18.00Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Google APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)1,000,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · highYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDgemini-3.1-pro-previewclaude-fable-5
API providers2638 (best)
ReleasedFeb 19, 2026Jun 9, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Jan 31, 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview$44.00
  • Claude Fable 5$200.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Claude Fable 5?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Claude Fable 5 (65). It leads on price and inputs & features. Claude Fable 5 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Claude Fable 5?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is cheaper at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00 input / $50.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $4.50 per million tokens for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview versus $20.00 for Claude Fable 5 (4.4× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Fable 5 162.2 (#7 of 148) and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 154.8 (#31 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (159.6–166.1 vs 152.6–157.3), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 94.4%, Claude Fable 5 85.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Fable 5 87.0%, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 59.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Fable 5 100%, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 95.6%; SimpleQA Verified — Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 73.5%, Claude Fable 5 70.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Fable 5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Fable 5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview up to 65,536, Claude Fable 5 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Claude Fable 5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Claude Fable 5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Claude Fable 5 is the newest, released Jun 9, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview came out Feb 19, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Jan 2025, Claude Fable 5 Jan 31, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.