UseRightAI
HomeModelsAsk AIComparePricingWhat's New
UseRightAICut through AI hype. Pick what works.

Independent AI model tracker. Live pricing, real benchmarks, zero vendor bias.

X (Twitter)LinkedInUpdatesContact

Compare

Opus 4.8 vs Opus 4.7Fable 5 vs Opus 4.8New AI Models 2026ChatGPT vs ClaudeGPT-4o vs Claude SonnetClaude vs GeminiDeepSeek vs ChatGPTMistral vs ClaudeGemini Flash vs GPT-4o MiniLlama vs ChatGPTAll comparisons →Build your own →

Best For

CodingWritingDevelopersProduct ManagersDesignersSalesBest Cheap AIBest Free AI

Pricing & Data

API Token PricingCost per TaskPrice HistoryBenchmark ScoresPrivacy & SafetySubscription PlansPlan Usage LimitsCost CalculatorWhich AI is Cheapest?Cheapest AI APIs

Company

About UseRightAIContactWhat ChangedAll ModelsEditorial PolicyDisclosuresPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service

© 2026 UseRightAI. Independent · Free forever · Not affiliated with any AI provider.

Affiliate links are clearly labeled. See disclosures.

Home/Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Winner: Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic vs Google

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 wins on coding (100 vs 89) and writing quality. Gemini 3.7 Flash wins on price ($0.75 vs $10/1M input). 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 safest Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.

Best overall model

Claude Fable 5.1

View
Why this recommendation

Claude Fable 5.1 is the strongest answer here for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $10.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.

AnthropicPremium
Best for
Frontier agentic coding, long-horizon autonomous work, and agentic scientific research
Price
$10.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Best value model

Gemini 3.7 Flash

View
Why this recommendation

Gemini 3.7 Flash handles the same job for about 93% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.

GoogleBalanced
Best for
High-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing
Price
$0.75/1M
Context
1.0M tokens
Best for speed

Gemini 3.7 Flash

View
Why this recommendation

Gemini 3.7 Flash is the fastest of these for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.

GoogleBalanced
Best for
High-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing
Price
$0.75/1M
Context
1.0M tokens

Why this page recommends it

Claude Fable 5.1 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 89 for Gemini 3.7 Flash.

Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger context window: 1.048576M vs 1M for Claude Fable 5.1.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.75/1M input tokens vs $10/1M for Claude Fable 5.1.

Decision notes

Choose Claude Fable 5.1 for frontier agentic coding, long-horizon autonomous work, and agentic scientific research. Its coding and research scores are what carry the recommendation here.

Gemini 3.7 Flash earns its place when your work is mostly high-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing, even though it loses the overall count here.

Gemini 3.7 Flash is the more cost-efficient option at $0.75/1M input — Claude Fable 5.1 costs 13x 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 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.

#1Claude Fable 5.191 pts
#2Gemini 3.7 Flash85 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.

Cost
$10.00/1M
$50.00/1M out
Speed
Deliberate
2/5 score
Context
1M tokens
input window
View model
Data-backed recommendation
Avoid this pick 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.

Recommended comparisons

Where the Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.

AnthropicPremiumWinner: Claude Fable 5.1

Claude Fable 5.1

New frontier leader — better than Fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper to run.

Best use case
Frontier agentic coding, long-horizon autonomous work, and agentic scientific research
Input
$10.00/1M
Pricing
Premium
Speed
Deliberate
Context
1M tokens
Coding leaderFrontierAgentic
GoogleBalancedOption 2

Gemini 3.7 Flash

80.8% SWE-bench Verified at introductory Flash pricing.

Best use case
High-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing
Input
$0.75/1M
Pricing
Balanced
Speed
Fast
Context
1.0M tokens
Coding1M contextFast

Side-by-side specs

List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.

ModelInputOutputEst. monthContextSpeedCodingWritingResearch
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic$10.00/1M$50.00/1M$2001M tokensDeliberate10098100
Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle$0.75/1M$3.75/1M$151.0M tokensFast898285

Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.

The case for each model

Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.

Claude Fable 5.1

Winner: Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic

The default answer for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash — 100/100 on the coding axis, and the model we would start with unless the price below rules it out.

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.

Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Fable 5.1 page.

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Google

Where most budgets should land for Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash — about 93% less per token than Claude Fable 5.1, and still 89/100 on the coding axis.

Google's fastest-moving coding workhorse — 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified at half the price of Gemini 3.6 Flash, shipped just three weeks after it.

Input
$0.75/1M
Output
$3.75/1M
Context
1.0M tokens
Speed
Fast

What people actually use it for

  • Bulk code review and refactoring where 80.8% SWE-bench Verified is enough and volume matters
  • 1M-context document and repository analysis at $0.75/1M input
  • Agentic loops that need frontier-adjacent coding quality without frontier pricing

Where it wins

  • 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified — frontier-class coding from a Flash-tier model
  • Large jumps over 3.6 Flash on software engineering: FrontierCode 34.4% to 43.6%, DeepSWE 49.0% to 65.3%
  • Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 56 at high thinking level, with a 1M token context window

Where it falls down

  • The $0.75/$3.75 launch price is introductory — it doubles to $1.50/$7.50 on January 1, 2027
  • Still short of Claude Opus 5 (96%) and GPT-5.6 Sol (96.2%) on SWE-bench Verified for the hardest coding work

Skip it if

You are planning 2027 spend and need price certainty — the introductory rate expires December 31, 2026.

Our verdict

The best coding score per dollar in Google's lineup right now — 80.8% SWE-bench Verified at $0.75/1M input. Budget on the post-January 2027 price of $1.50/$7.50 if you are signing anything long-term.

Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Gemini 3.7 Flash page.

Explore related decisions

Comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.6 FlashGemini 3.7 Flash vs Gemini 3.6 Flash — see exactly which wins on SWE-bench…Read guide
Comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5 — see exactly which wins on SWE-bench…Read guide
Comparison
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 TerraGemini 3.7 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra — see exactly which wins on SWE-bench coding…Read guide
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1New frontier leader — better than Fable 5 on every published benchmark, and cheaper…Read guide
Google
Gemini 3.7 Flash80.8% SWE-bench Verified at introductory Flash pricing.Read guide
Alternatives
Best Claude Fable 5.1 AlternativesLooking for a Claude Fable 5.1 alternative? Compare 4 rivals on real capability scores…Read guide
Alternatives
Best Gemini 3.7 Flash AlternativesLooking for a Gemini 3.7 Flash alternative? Compare 5 rivals on real capability scores…Read guide
Guide
Best AI for CodingClaude Opus 4.7 leads coding AI in 2026 with 64.3% on SWE-Bench Pro. Compare…Read guide

Quick links

Browse all modelsCompare pricingView Claude Fable 5.1View Gemini 3.7 Flash

How we evaluate AI models

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 3.7 flash changes

We email when the Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.

No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.

FAQ

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 3.7 Flash?

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 3.7 Flash is the better pick when your work is mostly high-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing. Neither is universally "better": Claude Fable 5.1 is aimed at frontier agentic coding and long-horizon autonomous work, Gemini 3.7 Flash at high-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing.

Which is cheaper — Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

Gemini 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.75/1M input and $3.75/1M 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 3.7 Flash?

Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger context window at 1.048576M tokens vs Claude Fable 5.1's 1M. For large document analysis, Gemini 3.7 Flash is the stronger pick.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.7 Flash better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash's 89 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.

Which is faster — Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

Gemini 3.7 Flash is faster with a fast speed rating (score: 4) 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 3.7 Flash instead.

What are the downsides of Gemini 3.7 Flash?

The $0.75/$3.75 launch price is introductory — it doubles to $1.50/$7.50 on January 1, 2027. Still short of Claude Opus 5 (96%) and GPT-5.6 Sol (96.2%) on SWE-bench Verified for the hardest coding work. Avoid it if you are planning 2027 spend and need price certainty — the introductory rate expires December 31, 2026. Against Claude Fable 5.1 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (100 vs 89).

What does a month of real work cost on Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash?

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 3.7 Flash runs $15.00 (at $0.75/1M in and $3.75/1M out). That is a $185.00/month difference — Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash 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 3.7 Flash handling high-volume coding and long-context work at introductory Flash pricing. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Gemini 3.7 Flash at $0.75/1M and reserving Claude Fable 5.1 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.