Claude Fable 5.1 wins on coding (100 vs 80) and writing quality. Gemini 3.1 Pro wins on price ($2 vs $10/1M input) and context window (2M vs 1M). For most workflows, Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger default — new frontier leader — better than fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper to run.
Last verified Sep 1, 2026/Model data modified Sep 1, 2026
Rankings refresh dailyScored on 6 criteriaNo paid rankings
AnthropicPremium
Input cost
$10.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
Clear recommendation block
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
GooglePremium
Best for
Research, deep document analysis, and long-context reasoning at competitive pricing
Price
$2.00/1M
Context
2M tokens
Why this page recommends it
Claude Fable 5.1 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 80 for Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger context window: 2M vs 1M for Claude Fable 5.1.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper at $2/1M input tokens vs $10/1M for Claude Fable 5.1.
Decision notes
Go with Claude Fable 5.1 if you want one model to handle coding and research — it targets frontier agentic coding, long-horizon autonomous work, and agentic scientific research.
Switch to Gemini 3.1 Pro when your work is mostly research and deep document analysis; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is the more cost-efficient option at $2/1M input — Claude Fable 5.1 costs 5x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
Interactive decision lab
Test the recommendation against your priority
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
#1Claude Fable 5.191 pts
#2Gemini 3.1 Pro86 pts
Quality first
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic / Premium / Sep 1, 2026
91
New frontier leader — better than Fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper to run.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need low latency, or your workload is uncached and cost-sensitive — Claude Opus 5 is half the base price and within a few points on agentic coding.
Recommended comparisons
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Capability scores are out of 100 and reflect our own weighting of published benchmarks and production signals — see how we evaluate models. “Est. month” assumes 10M input and 2M output tokens at list price, with no batch or caching discounts applied, so treat it as a ceiling.
The case for each model
What each one is genuinely good at, where it falls down, and the situations we would steer you away from it — not just the headline score.
Anthropic's September 1, 2026 frontier release and the new capability ceiling for coding, agents, and scientific work. Base pricing is unchanged at $10/$50, but cache reads dropped 75% to $0.25/1M — roughly 25% cheaper on typical workloads and up to 45% cheaper on agentic ones. 1M context, 128K output, adaptive thinking always on.
Input
$10.00/1M
Output
$50.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Deliberate
What people actually use it for
Agentic scientific research — 52.6% on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, more than double Fable 5's 24.7%
Long-running autonomous coding agents that plan, run, and debug across a whole repository
Cache-heavy agent loops where the 75% cache-read cut ($1.00 → $0.25 per 1M) is the real saving
Where it wins
52.6% Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 — 2.1x Fable 5 (24.7%), well clear of Opus 5 (29.0%) and GPT-5.6 Sol (22.4%)
55.8% Terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding, ahead of Opus 5 (52.3%) and Fable 5 (42.0%)
Cache reads cut 75% to $0.25/1M — ~25% cheaper for typical use, ~45% for heavily agentic work
Independent Vals AI evaluation ranks it #1 of 51 on the Vals Index, #1 on LiveCodeBench (90.5%) and MMLU Pro (92.4%)
1M-token context and 128K max output at standard rates, with adaptive thinking always enabled
Where it falls down
Base rates are still $10/$50 per 1M — double Claude Opus 5 for anything that is not cache-heavy
Anthropic published no SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure for 5.1 at launch
On Claude Pro it only runs on pay-as-you-go credits; Max includes it up to 50% of weekly limits
Deliberate, high-latency profile — the wrong choice for interactive, latency-bound apps
Skip it if
You need low latency, or your workload is uncached and cost-sensitive — Claude Opus 5 is half the base price and within a few points on agentic coding.
Our verdict
The new frontier leader, and the rare upgrade that costs less than the model it replaces. Base $10/$50 pricing did not move, but a 75% cut to cache reads makes typical workloads ~25% cheaper than Fable 5 and heavily agentic ones ~45% cheaper — while more than doubling Fable 5 on agentic science and beating Opus 5 on agentic coding. If you were already on Fable 5, switching is a straight win. If you were on Opus 5 for the price, it still costs 2x on uncached tokens.
Released September 1, 2026 alongside Claude Mythos 5.1, the first update to the Mythos-class line since Fable 5 on June 9. API ID claude-fable-5-1; generally available on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Foundry. Published launch numbers (Fable 5.1 / Fable 5 / Opus 5 / GPT-5.6 Sol): Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 52.6 / 24.7 / 29.0 / 22.4; Terminal-Bench 4.0 55.8 / 42.0 / 52.3 / 37.3; CursorBench 3.2.0 73.4 / 70.5 / 70.0 / 67.2; AutomationBench 31.4 / 17.1 / 26.9 / 19.6; OSWorld 2.0 strict 41.7 / 36.1 / 39.6; Humanity's Last Exam (no tools) 60.9 / 57.8 / 56.6; GDPval-AA v2 1853 / 1723 / 1824 / 1711. GDPval-AA v2 is rescaled from the v1 numbers quoted on the Fable 5 page and is not directly comparable to them.
Google's flagship with the largest context window of any frontier model at 2M tokens, Deep Think reasoning, and the best price-to-performance among premium models.
Input
$2.00/1M
Output
$12.00/1M
Context
2M tokens
Speed
Balanced
What people actually use it for
Analyzing entire contracts, codebases, or research corpora in a single 2M-token prompt
Due diligence synthesis across large sets of financial documents or legal agreements
Multi-step reasoning across dense technical specifications with Deep Think mode
Where it wins
2M token context window — the largest of any frontier model
Leads ARC-AGI-2 reasoning benchmark at 77.1%
Best price-to-performance among premium models at $2/$12 per 1M tokens
Where it falls down
Slower than Flash for everyday lightweight tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is better for writing quality
Skip it if
Your primary use case is writing quality or agentic coding — Claude wins both.
Our verdict
The best research and long-context model available. Handles entire codebases, legal documents, and large datasets in a single pass — at a lower price than GPT-5.4 or Claude Sonnet 4.6.
The 2M context window is a genuine competitive advantage — no other frontier model gets close for document-heavy workflows.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Get updates when claude fable 5.1 vs gemini 3.1 pro changes
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
FAQ
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Claude Fable 5.1 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. Gemini 3.1 Pro is the better pick when your work is mostly research and deep document analysis. Neither is universally "better": Claude Fable 5.1 is aimed at frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, Gemini 3.1 Pro at research and deep document analysis.
Which is cheaper — Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper at $2/1M input and $12/1M output. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10/1M input and $50/1M output.
Which has a larger context window — Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger context window at 2M tokens vs Claude Fable 5.1's 1M. For large document analysis, Gemini 3.1 Pro is the stronger pick.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.1 Pro better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro's 80 (out of 100). Claude Fable 5.1 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Which is faster — Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Gemini 3.1 Pro is faster with a balanced speed rating (score: 3) vs Claude Fable 5.1's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Fable 5.1 latency penalty is usually invisible.
What are the downsides of Claude Fable 5.1?
Base rates are still $10/$50 per 1M — double Claude Opus 5 for anything that is not cache-heavy. Anthropic published no SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure for 5.1 at launch. On Claude Pro it only runs on pay-as-you-go credits; Max includes it up to 50% of weekly limits. Avoid it if you need low latency, or your workload is uncached and cost-sensitive — Claude Opus 5 is half the base price and within a few points on agentic coding. That is the main case for looking at Gemini 3.1 Pro instead.
What are the downsides of Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Slower than Flash for everyday lightweight tasks. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is better for writing quality. Avoid it if your primary use case is writing quality or agentic coding — Claude wins both. Against Claude Fable 5.1 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (100 vs 80).
What does a month of real work cost on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Fable 5.1 runs $200.00 (at $10/1M in and $50/1M out); Gemini 3.1 Pro runs $44.00 (at $2/1M in and $12/1M out). That is a $156.00/month difference — Gemini 3.1 Pro is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Can I use Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 3.1 Pro together?
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Fable 5.1 for frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, with Gemini 3.1 Pro handling research and deep document analysis. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Gemini 3.1 Pro at $2/1M and reserving Claude Fable 5.1 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.