Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Compare Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Open Prompt, and Object Detection.
Compare Claude Fable 5 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 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Counting, where Gemini 3.6 Flash leads 80.2% to 63.5%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5 averages 78.7% (#11 of 52) against 83.0% (#6 of 52) for Gemini 3.6 Flash.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0032 vs $0.034 per sample), while Claude Fable 5 is faster (8.7s vs 14.7s per sample).
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 3, 2026Pricing updated September 4, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $0.750 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $3.75 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Video Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 78.7% | 83.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.034 | $0.0032 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.71s | 14.66s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.4% | 57.1% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.9 to 59.4 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 70.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.3 to 71.2 |
| Counting (low) | 63.5% | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 |
| Counting (high) | – | 79.3% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 82.4 |
| Identification (low) | 100.0% | 99.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 |
| Identification (high) | – | 100.0% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 100.0 to 100.0 |
| OCR (low) | 94.0% | 88.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.9 to 88.4 |
| OCR (high) | – | 89.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.5 to 89.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 91.8% | 95.9% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 94.8 to 96.9 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 94.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 95.9 |
| Reasoning (low) | 66.2% | 77.7% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.2 to 80.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 66.2% | 81.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.5 to 83.4 |
Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Overview
Claude Fable 5 is Anthropic's first generally available Mythos-class large language model, released on June 9, 2026. It is built for long-horizon, asynchronous, and agentic tasks that prior Claude generations could not sustain, including multi-day autonomous coding sessions, complex knowledge work, and document-heavy analysis. The model supports a 1 million token context window with up to 128,000 output tokens per request and uses adaptive thinking as its sole reasoning mode, where the effort level is adjustable but raw chain-of-thought is never returned. Vision capabilities allow the model to parse diagrams, charts, and tables embedded in files and PDFs, and to use visual feedback to evaluate its own coding outputs against design goals. On benchmarks such as SWE-Bench Pro, the model scores 80.3% compared to 69.2% for Claude Opus 4.8, and it leads on CursorBench 3.1 for autonomous coding workflows.
Claude Fable 5 shares the same underlying model weights as Claude Mythos 5, but is deployed with safety classifiers that automatically reroute queries in high-risk domains — including cybersecurity, biology, and chemistry — to Claude Opus 4.8. These classifiers trigger in fewer than 5% of sessions on average. As a designated Covered Model, all traffic is subject to mandatory 30-day data retention to support safety monitoring. The model is available via the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Vertex AI, and Microsoft Foundry. Anthropic has not publicly disclosed parameter count, architecture details, or training data composition for this model.
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 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.0% (#6 of 52) against 78.7% (#11 of 52) for Claude Fable 5. 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 63.5%. 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 $0.0032 per sample against $0.034. Claude Fable 5 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 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.7s per inference against 14.7s. 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 image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.