Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 3 Flash score 86.5% vs 65.7% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #31 of 67 models), so Claude Fable 5.2 leads overall.
- Claude Fable 5.2 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (81.6% vs 38.6%).
- Gemini 3 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0024 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Gemini 3 Flash is faster: 5.8s vs 9.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Flash on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 3 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Dec 2025 |
| 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 | $8.00 | $0.500 |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | $3.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 86.5% | 65.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0024 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 5.83s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 38.6% |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | – |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 67.6% |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | – |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 93.8% |
| Identification (high) | 94.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 63.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 73.1% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 64.9% |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 74.2% |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3 Flash: Overview
Claude Fable 5.2 is a proprietary multimodal model from Anthropic, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text and images and produces text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. Adaptive thinking is always enabled, with an effort setting that controls reasoning. Anthropic positions Fable for demanding reasoning and long-running technical work, including coding and analysis of visual inputs.
Fable 5.2 succeeds Fable 5.1. Anthropic reports improvements in coding, reasoning, and vision, with output generation up to 30% faster than its predecessor. Fable and Mythos 5.2 share an underlying model, with additional cybersecurity and biology safeguards applied to Fable. Model weights are not publicly released.
Gemini 3 Flash is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by Google through Google DeepMind, designed to deliver fast, cost-efficient reasoning across real-time products and developer workflows. Released in December 2025, it is the Flash-tier variant of the Gemini 3 family, balancing low latency with reasoning quality approaching Pro models.
The model supports text, images, audio, and video, with an exceptionally large context window of roughly one million input tokens and outputs up to ~65k tokens. It emphasizes rapid responses for coding, summarization, analysis, and agentic tasks, and exposes configurable “thinking levels” via API to trade speed for deeper reasoning. Today, Gemini 3 Flash positions itself as a high-throughput, production-ready model, serving as the default in the Gemini app and Google Search’s AI Mode, optimized for scalable, interactive AI applications.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.2 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 86.5% (#2 of 67) against 65.7% (#31 of 67) for Gemini 3 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 81.6% against 38.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 3 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0024 per sample against $0.031. Claude Fable 5.2 is priced at $8.00 per 1M input tokens and $40.00 per 1M output; Gemini 3 Flash is priced at $0.50 per 1M input tokens and $3.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 3 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.8s per inference against 9.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.