Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 3.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, OCR, Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 80.2% to 69.4%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 74.7% (#14 of 63) against 77.1% (#11 of 63) for Gemini 3.6 Flash.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0033 vs $0.039 per sample), while Claude Fable 5.1 is faster (8.3s vs 10.4s per sample).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $0.750 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $3.75 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Video Classification | Not listed | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 74.7% | 77.1% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.039 | $0.0033 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.35s | 10.43s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0 | 57.1% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | 65.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3 | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 |
| Counting (low) | 69.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6 | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0 | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0 | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 |
| OCR (low) | 72.9% | 71.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 75.3% | 77.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 72.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5 | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5 | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 |
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Overview
Claude Fable 5.1 is a proprietary multimodal model from Anthropic in the Mythos-class tier of the Claude 5 family, positioned above Claude Opus for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work. It accepts text and images as input and returns text, with a one million token context window and a maximum output of 128 thousand tokens. Adaptive thinking is always on, and an effort parameter controls how much reasoning the model applies to a given request. Anthropic reports a reliable knowledge and training data cutoff of June 2026. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 share the same underlying model; the difference between them is the set of safety classifiers applied to dual-use cybersecurity and biology requests.
On the vision side, Anthropic documents improvements in reading dense charts, financial filings, and tables nested inside PDF documents, which extends the model toward document understanding, chart question answering, and spreadsheet and slide work. Reported evaluations cover agentic scientific research on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, agentic coding on Terminal-Bench 4.0, computer use on OSWorld 2.0, and multidisciplinary reasoning on Humanity's Last Exam. Model weights are not published.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a multimodal language model from Google DeepMind, positioned as the workhorse tier in the Gemini 3.x family. It accepts text, image, video, audio, and PDF inputs with a 1 million token context window and produces up to 64,000 output tokens. The model builds directly on Gemini 3.5 Flash, incorporating developer and customer feedback to improve token efficiency, coding quality, and knowledge work performance. According to the Artificial Analysis Index, it consumes 17% fewer output tokens than its predecessor, and on some benchmarks such as DeepSWE, token reduction reaches up to 65%. It supports function calling, structured output, search as a tool, and code execution, and includes computer use as a built-in capability in the Gemini API and Gemini Enterprise.
On coding benchmarks, Gemini 3.6 Flash scores 49% on DeepSWE versus 37% for 3.5 Flash, and 63.9% on MLE Bench versus 49.7%. Computer use performance on OSWorld-Verified improves from 78.4% to 83%, and knowledge work scores on GDPval-AA v2 rise from 1349 to 1421. The model carries a knowledge cutoff of March 2026 and ships with enhanced Frontier Safety safeguards covering chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cyber offense domains, with training to minimize refusals for beneficial uses. It is a proprietary, closed-weights model available in preview through the Gemini API via Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise, and the Gemini app.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Gemini 3.6 Flash performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the five vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#11 of 63) against 74.7% (#14 of 63) for Claude Fable 5.1. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark at low effort, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads with 80.2% against 69.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.039. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Gemini 3.6 Flash is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.75 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Fable 5.1 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s per inference against 10.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.