The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon

Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon are closely matched at 61.3 and 57.8 on the LLM Stats Score.

Anthropic · Google · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 61.3 and 57.8.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.2 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Fable 5.2

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 5 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026

Choose Gemini 4 Carbon

  • you are already invested in the Google ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.2
Anthropic
Gemini 4 Carbon
Google
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
61.3
#1
57.8
#3
Reasoning
60.3
#1
53.9
#7
Coding
50.7
#1
46.9
#4
Agents
47.1
#1
44.7
#3
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 5
1 of 5
Input price
$8.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$40.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.2
Gemini 4 Carbon
Vision
48.1#1
35.2#16
Tool use
37.1#2
34.9#4
Multimodal
44.5#1
36.4#10
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

29 reported for Claude Fable 5.2 · 16 for Gemini 4 Carbon

5 shared

Claude Fable 5.2 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (Chartography (no tools), FrontierSWE V2, OSWorld 2.1 (partial), Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1), while Gemini 4 Carbon is better at 1 benchmark (AutomationBench).

Claude Fable 5.2 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Nov 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Fable 5.2 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5.2 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.2
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Google
Gemini 4 Carbon
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Nov 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5.2

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Gemini 4 Carbon

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Fable 5.2

Proprietary

Closed source

Gemini 4 Carbon

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 2026-11-09, while Gemini 4 Carbon was released on 2026-10-28.

Claude Fable 5.2 is 0 month newer than Gemini 4 Carbon.

Claude Fable 5.2

Nov 9, 2026

0 days ago

1w newer
Gemini 4 Carbon

Oct 28, 2026

1 weeks ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Fable 5.2 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Gemini 4 Carbon's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Fable 5.2's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Gemini 4 Carbon's cutoff date.

Claude Fable 5.2

Jun 2026

Gemini 4 Carbon

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.2
✓ Preferred
Gemini 4 Carbon
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.2 vs Gemini 4 Carbon.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.2 or Gemini 4 Carbon?

Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 61.3 and 57.8. Claude Fable 5.2 is made by Anthropic and Gemini 4 Carbon is made by Google. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.2 compare to Gemini 4 Carbon in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.2 scores SWE-bench Multilingual: 96.6%, Global-MMLU: 96.0%, MILU: 94.1%, SWE-Bench Pro: 93.0%, Chartography: 91.6%. Gemini 4 Carbon scores Gray Swan IPI Benchmark: 100.0%, Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, Graphwalks BFS >128k: 96.2%, WebDev Arena: 88.4%, SEC-bench Pro: 88.2%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon?

Claude Fable 5.2 supports 1.0M tokens and Gemini 4 Carbon supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (61.3 vs 57.8). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Carbon?

Claude Fable 5.2 is developed by Anthropic and Gemini 4 Carbon is developed by Google.

Related comparisons