Compare / Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Argon
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 78 results on 6 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Fable 5.1
GoogleGemini 4 Argon
Claude Fable 5.1 wins 2225 too close to callGemini 4 Argon wins 31
Of the 78 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also Anthropic vs Google, every model from both labs.
Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon? The short answer
Pick Gemini 4 Argon: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 65) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Fable 5.1 65, Gemini 4 Argon 75 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run: $0.011 against $0.099 per product listing on CatalogBench (9.1 times less).
- They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (53.4 and 52.6).
- Gemini 4 Argon is newer: released 13 Oct 2026, against 1 Sep 2026 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Fable 5.1 does better for decks from an analysis and marketing planning; Gemini 4 Argon for product listings.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Fable 5.1 does better for reasoning and knowledge; Gemini 4 Argon for agents and tool use and writing.
Head to head
65
Spring Prompt overall
75
53.4
Intelligence Index
52.6
$20.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.00
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 4 Argon | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $10.00 in · $50.00 out | $2.00 in · $10.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $20.00 | $4.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $20.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.099 | $0.011 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.25 cached input | – |
| Intelligence Index | 53.4 | 52.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 65 | 75 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 65 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 1 Sep 2026 | 13 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
17 of 22
7 of 22
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
6 of 21
13 of 21
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
not measured
5 of 10
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
6 of 21
8 of 21
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
16 of 166
3 of 166
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
4 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
5 of 200
3 of 200
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
19 of 189
1 of 189
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
5 of 153
1 of 153
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
26 of 26
20 of 25
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Blitz 3+2US dollars, lower is better 15 · 10 of 15 measured | $0.38 | $0.12 |
| Games lost on time · Blitz 3+2% of games, lower is better 8 · 1 of 15 measured | 37.5% | 0.0% |
| Invalid moves · Blitz 3+2% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 15 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 22 · 12 of 22 measured | $0.0991 | $0.0109 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 16 · 5 of 22 measured | 26.8% | 60.7% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 15 · 9 of 22 measured | 5.4% | 17.9% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 20 · 10 of 21 measured | $0.81 | $0.11 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 13 of 21 measured | 1,351 | 998 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 13 of 21 measured | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 8 of 21 measured | 51.5 | 47.0 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 4 · 8 of 21 measured | 67.7 | 65.5 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 6 · 8 of 21 measured | 52.3 | 43.3 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 6 · 1 of 387 measured | 1,501max reasoning | 1,525high reasoning |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 3 · 1 of 163 measured | 1,500max reasoning | 1,511high reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 17 · 1 of 380 measured | 1,484max reasoning | 1,522high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 3 · 5 of 244 measured | 53.4max reasoning | 52.6high reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 2 · 3 of 243 measured | 59.1%max reasoning | 57.1%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 4 of 113 measured | 55.1%xhigh reasoning | 57.1%high reasoning |
Show all 78 results (60 more)
| Measure | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 4 Argon |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Ladder Elo · Blitz 3+2ladder Elo, higher is better 14 · 1 of 15 measured | 358 | 1,147 |
| Median move time · Blitz 3+2milliseconds, lower is better 8 · 5 of 15 measured | 5.4 s | 1.9 s |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 15 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 10 · 4 of 22 measured | 97.6% | 98.2% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 12 · 4 of 22 measured | 97.2% | 98.4% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 14 · 5 of 22 measured | 95.9% | 97.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 3 · 3 of 22 measured | 94.7% | 94.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 5 · 14 of 22 measured | 0.7% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 22 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 2 · 3 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 2 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 16 · 5 of 22 measured | 46.4% | 70.8% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 17 · 8 of 22 measured | 13.7% | 35.1% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 16 · 3 of 22 measured | 21.7 | 7.30 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 19 · 6 of 22 measured | 1.23 | 0.42 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 19 · 9 of 22 measured | 48.8% | 16.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 20 · 12 of 22 measured | 3.86 | 1.98 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 20 · 12 of 22 measured | 83.9% | 63.1% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 1 · 6 of 22 measured | 11.9% | 15.5% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 6 · 7 of 22 measured | 14.9% | 15.5% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 11 · 4 of 22 measured | 2.4% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 4 · 4 of 22 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 13 · 13 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 11 · 16 of 21 measured | 66.6% | 55.2% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 17 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 13 of 21 measured | 83.0% | 57.0% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 13 · 13 of 21 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 12 of 21 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 15 of 21 measured | 50.0% | 66.7% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 14 · 6 of 21 measured | 158 | 67.5 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 11 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 5 of 21 measured | 33.3 | 34.7 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 1 · 5 of 21 measured | $965,271 | $673,561 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 21 · 11 of 21 measured | $2.49 | $0.24 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 21 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 1 of 21 measured | 54.6 | 55.4 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 7 · 8 of 21 measured | $0.64 | $0.55 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 8 results | ||
| Confirmed task success · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 1 · 3 of 48 measured | 0.18max reasoning, arena agent | 0.15high reasoning, arena agent |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 9 · 1 of 385 measured | 1,482max reasoning | 1,519high reasoning |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 15 · 7 of 338 measured | 1,521max reasoning | 1,539high reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 6 · 1 of 387 measured | 1,497max reasoning | 1,528high reasoning |
| Praise over complaint · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 2 · 4 of 48 measured | 0.32max reasoning, arena agent | 0.28high reasoning, arena agent |
| Steerability · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 6 · 1 of 48 measured | 0.09max reasoning, arena agent | 0.13high reasoning, arena agent |
| Tool grounding · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 4 · 29 of 48 measured | 0.00max reasoning, arena agent | 0.00high reasoning, arena agent |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 7 · 1 of 386 measured | 1,491max reasoning | 1,522high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 3 · 44 of 234 measured | 85.3%max reasoning | 79.7%high reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 2 · 3 of 114 measured | 63.1%max reasoning | 61.8%high reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs GoogleEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 SolJust above overall
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Gemini 4 Argon vs GPT-6 AstraJust above overall
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Muse WonderJust below overall
Quick answers
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Gemini 4 Argon?
Pick Gemini 4 Argon: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 75 against 65) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon is cheaper to run: $0.011 against $0.099 per product listing on CatalogBench (9.1 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 7 of 22 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 17 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 6 of 21 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 13 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks 6 of 21 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 8 for Gemini 4 Argon.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 3 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 16 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon ranks 3 of 200 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 5 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or Gemini 4 Argon?
Gemini 4 Argon: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Fable 5.1.
Run Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 4 Argon on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.