Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Claude Fable 5
Gemini 3.6 Flash was superseded by Gemini 3.8 Flash. Claude Fable 5 was superseded by Claude Fable 5.1. The grades below are the last ones measured, so read them as history rather than as this week's board. See the current roster.
Both grade C overall. Gemini 3.6 Flash is about 4.4x cheaper per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and vibe coding is even at C+. Both agents run the same private suite cut headless through their own tools, each on its own subscription.Measured
Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.
Verdict: Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Both grade C overall. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 60% capability); vibe coding is even at C+ (72% vs 74% capability). Only Claude Fable 5 has run spec planning. Gemini 3.6 Flash used 12.6% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.039 per task at the listed price. Claude Fable 5 used 7% of Claude Max 20x's weekly limit per pass, $0.169 per task at the listed price; at the ~$100 tier the board defaults to that is an estimated ~14% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit (est, about $0.169 per task). Per task, Gemini 3.6 Flash is about 4.4x cheaper ($0.039 vs $0.169). Gemini 3.6 Flash is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 2m 17s against 2m 37s. Both finished every task on it.
Changed since the previous graded week: Gemini 3.6 Flash unchanged; Claude Fable 5: real-world issues C+ to C-, vibe coding C to C+.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Fable 5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 60% | Even |
| Median task time | 2m 17s | 2m 37s | 20s faster (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.039 / task | $0.153 / task | $0.115 / task lower (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 12.6% of Google AI Pro (about 72.1% / 5h, 12.6% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Claude Fable 5: 33.0% of Claude Max 20x (33.0% / 5h, 5.0% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Only Claude Fable 5 has run this suite, so there is no head-to-head yet.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Claude Fable 5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 72% | 74% | +3% (Claude Fable 5 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 54s | 5m 28s | 3m 34s faster (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.038 / task | $0.184 / task | $0.146 / task lower (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 0.8% of Google AI Pro (4.9% / 5h, 0.8% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Claude Fable 5: 2.8% of Claude Max 20x (2.8% / 5h, 0.4% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds about 7 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Claude Fable 5?
They are even on our ladder: both clear tier 4 of 5 at 60% capability on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-10.
Which is cheaper per task, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Claude Fable 5?
Gemini 3.6 Flash used 12.6% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.039 per task at the listed price. Claude Fable 5 used 7% of Claude Max 20x's weekly limit per pass, $0.169 per task at the listed price; at the ~$100 tier the board defaults to that is an estimated ~14% of Claude Max 5x's weekly limit (est, about $0.169 per task). Per task, Gemini 3.6 Flash is about 4.4x cheaper ($0.039 vs $0.169).