text model comparison
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon are both current text models, from Anthropic and Google. Gemini 4 Carbon is 75% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Fable 5.2, $2 vs $8. In Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.2 launch table, Claude Fable 5.2 scores 49.1% on FrontierCode 2.0 (best effort level per model) and Gemini 4 Carbon 41.1%.
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- Gemini 4 Carbon$2 against $8
- Newer release
- Claude Fable 5.2Nov 2026 against Oct 2026
Data verified November 10, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-10
Side by side
Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon, line by line
Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $8 | $2 (better) |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $40 | $10 (better) |
| Independent benchmarks | ||
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% (#12 of 43) | Not measured |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 95.1% (#1 of 43) | Not measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94% (#1 of 40) | Not measured |
| Arena Text | Not measured | 1526 Elo (#1 of 53) |
| Arena WebDev | Not measured | 1768 Elo (#3 of 48) |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Release date | November 9, 2026 | October 28, 2026 |
| Access | API only | limited access |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | Not reported |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | Not reported |
| Input | text, image | text, image |
| Output | text | text |
No independent benchmark has scored both models yet. Each rank counts the current models scored on that benchmark.
Provider results
What the labs report
Results tables a lab published with one of its models, where it lists both Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon. These are the lab's own figures, not independent measurements, and each table is read on its own: labs run benchmarks with different harnesses and budgets.
Anthropic, Claude Fable 5.2 launch table, November 9, 2026Anthropic · 2026-11-10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode 2.0best effort level per model | 49.1% (better) | 41.1% |
| FrontierSWE 2 | 69.9% (better) | 61.2% |
| AutomationBenchZapier | 51.4% | 53.9% (better) |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 | 74.6% (better) | 64.8% |
| OSWorld 2.1offline set, partial credit | 89.3% (better) | 81.5% |
| Chartographyno tools | 73.4% (better) | 72.5% |
Anthropic's table from the Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 announcement, each model at its highest available effort, with Anthropic's safeguards on; competitor figures come from their developers' system cards or the benchmarks' leaderboards. On FrontierCode 2.0 Fable 5.2 and 5.1 ran at xhigh effort and Gemini 4 Carbon at medium. Anthropic gives a Mythos 5.2 score for Terminal-Bench-Science only. Left out here: Anthropic's own evaluations (CVE Rediscovery, de novo binder design, RoboDojo Sim), Irregular's CyScenarioBench, where each lab's score covers different tasks, and Artificial Analysis's AA-Briefcase.
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.
Where each stands
Only Gemini 4 Carbon has a current Arena Text score: #1 of 53. Each bar is the share of current models it beats.
Independent benchmarks
Arena Text
Claude Fable 5.2: Not scored
Gemini 4 Carbon:#1of 53
1,526 Elo · ahead of 100%
Arena WebDev
Claude Fable 5.2: Not scored
Gemini 4 Carbon:#3of 48
1,768 Elo · ahead of 96%
GPQA Diamond
Claude Fable 5.2:#12of 43
93.9% · ahead of 71%
Gemini 4 Carbon: Not scored
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 43
95.1% · ahead of 100%
Gemini 4 Carbon: Not scored
SimpleQA Verified
Claude Fable 5.2:#1of 40
94% · ahead of 100%
Gemini 4 Carbon: Not scored
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$8 · cheaper than 12%
Gemini 4 Carbon:#32of 61
$2 · cheaper than 28%
Price per 1M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2:#53of 61
$40 · cheaper than 12%
Gemini 4 Carbon:#37of 61
$10 · cheaper than 30%
Context window
Claude Fable 5.2:#28of 70
1M tokens · longer than 23%
Gemini 4 Carbon: Not listed
Quality against price
Gemini 4 Carbon scores 1,526 at $4 (blended price per 1M tokens). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text score; hover any point to name it.
Quality against price: the data
| Model | Provider | Blended price per 1M tokens | Arena Text (Elo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 4 Carbon | $4 | 1,526 | |
| Gemini 4 Argon | $4 | 1,522 | |
| Muse Wonder | Meta | $8 | 1,511 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Anthropic | $8 | 1,506 |
| Claude Fable 5 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,504 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,503 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | $1.50 | 1,497 | |
| Muse Spark 1.3 | Meta | $2 | 1,496 |
| Claude Opus 5 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,490 |
| Kimi K3 | Moonshot Kimi | $6 | 1,487 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | OpenAI | $8 | 1,485 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | Alibaba Qwen | $3 | 1,484 |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | $3 | 1,483 | |
| GLM-5.3 | Z.ai | $2.15 | 1,483 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,482 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,482 |
| GPT-5.5 | OpenAI | $11 | 1,481 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.54 | 1,480 |
| GPT-5.4 | OpenAI | $5.63 | 1,475 |
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | DeepSeek | $0.52 | 1,475 |
| GPT-6 Astra | OpenAI | $20 | 1,474 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Z.ai | $0.24 | 1,474 |
| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | $1.13 | 1,473 | |
| Grok 4.20 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,472 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,472 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra | OpenAI | $4.50 | 1,468 |
| Grok 4.5 | xAI | $3 | 1,466 |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | DeepSeek | $1.98 | 1,464 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,461 |
| GPT-6 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,457 |
| Grok 4.6 | xAI | $3 | 1,456 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | $0.85 | 1,455 | |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.45 | 1,453 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.18 | 1,448 |
| Step 5 Preview | StepFun | $1.43 | 1,448 |
| Grok 4.3 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,442 |
| Grok 4.7 | xAI | $3 | 1,442 |
| GPT-6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.20 | 1,441 |
| Mistral Large 4 | Mistral AI | $1.05 | 1,423 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Anthropic | $0.20 | 1,422 |
| GPT-4.1 | OpenAI | $3.50 | 1,415 |
| Inkling 2 Small | Thinking Machines Lab | $0.47 | 1,412 |
| Solar Pro 4 | Upstage | $0.52 | 1,387 |
| GPT-4.1 mini | OpenAI | $0.70 | 1,383 |
| GPT-4.1 nano | OpenAI | $0.18 | 1,322 |
Cost
What each costs
Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.
The same work, priced
For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs 4.0 times as much as Gemini 4 Carbon, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
Claude Fable 5.2 costs 4.0× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $160
- Gemini 4 Carbon
- $40
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
Claude Fable 5.2 costs 3.9× as much
- Claude Fable 5.2
- $89.80
- Gemini 4 Carbon
- $22.90
| Workload or rate | Claude Fable 5.2 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $160 | $40 (better) |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $89.80 | $22.90 (better) |
| The same, through the batch API | $80 | Not listed |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.20 | $0.10 (better) |
| 1M input tokens, 5-minute cache write | $10 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, 1-hour cache write | $16 | Not listed |
| 1M input tokens, batch | $4 | Not listed |
| 1M output tokens, batch | $20 | Not listed |
Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.
Launch price $100, regular price $150
Verdict
When to choose each
Claude Fable 5.2
Where it leads
- Batch pricing, $4 input and $20 output per 1M tokens
Best for
- The hardest open-ended coding, research and agent runs, where Claude Opus 5.5 at high effort falls short
- Advising or orchestrating cheaper Claude models in a multi-agent setup
Watch out for
- Gemini 4 Carbon scores higher on AutomationBench in Anthropic's own table (53.9% against 51.4%)
- Safety classifiers block most penetration testing, exploit development and research biology requests and answer them with an older model (Claude Opus 4.8 for cybersecurity, Claude Opus 5 for biology); vetted organisations use Claude Mythos 5.2 for that work
- Anthropic recommends starting most coding and knowledge work on Claude Opus 5.5, at half the price, and moving up to Fable only when it falls short; Arena has not rated Fable 5.2 yet
Gemini 4 Carbon
Where it leads
- Lower input and output prices, $2 and $10 vs $8 and $40 per 1M tokens
- Cheaper cached input, $0.10 vs $0.20 per 1M tokens
Best for
- Finding, validating and patching vulnerabilities, for teams in Google's Fairwind Program
- Long-horizon engineering over very long inputs, once access opens
Watch out for
- Limited access: Google gives it first to a small group of cyber defenders, then to more trusted partners through its Fairwind Program, which governments, healthcare providers and telecoms apply to; there is no public API or app access yet
- The $2 and $10 rates are introductory, with cached input 95% off; after an introductory period Google has not dated, $4 input and $20 output per 1M tokens apply
- In Google's own table it trails GPT-6 Astra on FrontierSWE 2 (61.2% against 65.5%) and Claude Opus 5.5 on OSWorld-2.1 (81.5% against 87.2%)
- Google publishes no context window or output limit for Carbon yet
From benchmark to production
Building on Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.
AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes
FAQ
Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Gemini 4 Carbon is 75% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Claude Fable 5.2, $2 vs $8. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $160 and Gemini 4 Carbon $40 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?
Claude Fable 5.2 charges $0.20 per 1M cached input tokens, 98% below its standard input rate, and Gemini 4 Carbon $0.10, 95% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Claude Fable 5.2 costs $89.80 and Gemini 4 Carbon $22.90.
How do Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon compare in Anthropic's own results?
In the Claude Fable 5.2 launch table (November 9, 2026), Claude Fable 5.2 leads on FrontierCode 2.0 (best effort level per model), 49.1% to 41.1%; Claude Fable 5.2 leads on FrontierSWE 2, 69.9% to 61.2%; Gemini 4 Carbon leads on AutomationBench (Zapier), 53.9% to 51.4%. These are Anthropic's figures, not independent measurements.
Further reading
More on Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon
Articles on Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra and Mythos 5.2November 10, 2026 · compares both
- Gemini 4 Carbon: Benchmarks, Price and Who Gets It FirstOctober 29, 2026
- Gemini 4 Pro Leaks: What's Verified and What's HypeOctober 1, 2026
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.2 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Gemini 4 Argon vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty