AI Model Comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Fable 5

Verdict
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Fable 5: Claude Fable 5 scores higher on the Intelligence Index

Head-to-head specifications

MetricGemma 4 26B A4BClaude Fable 5Difference
Intelligence Index25.060.0-58.3%
Coding Index39.376.5-48.6%
Agentic Index11.052.8
Context window400K tokens1M tokens
Blended price ($/1M tokens)$0.13$1.68-92.3%
Output speed (tokens/s)5465-16.9%
AccessOpen weightsProprietary API
  • Claude Fable 5 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 60.0 vs 25.0).
  • Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run at $0.13/1M blended tokens — about 12.9× cheaper.
  • Claude Fable 5 offers the larger context window (1M tokens), useful for long documents and codebases.

Verdict: Gemma 4 26B A4B or Claude Fable 5?

Our recommendation
Claude Fable 5 is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter.

Gemma 4 26B A4B advantages

  • Affordability (+92%)

Claude Fable 5 advantages

  • General intelligence (+58%)
  • Coding ability (+49%)
  • Agentic task performance (+79%)
  • Context window (+60%)
  • Output speed (+17%)

Which should you choose?

  • Choose the Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the lowest cost per token at scale.
  • Choose the Claude Fable 5 if you need the strongest overall reasoning and accuracy.

Value for money

Gemma 4 26B A4B offers more intelligence per dollar (5.4× the Intelligence-Index-per-cost of the alternative), making it the stronger value for high-volume use. It is also open-weight, so self-hosting can reduce costs further at scale.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Fable 5: which should you choose?

Gemma 4 26B A4B — Google text model with an Intelligence Index of 25, a 400K-token context window and a blended price of $0.13/1M tokens (open weights).

Claude Fable 5 — Anthropic multimodal model with an Intelligence Index of 60, a 1M-token context window and a blended price of $1.68/1M tokens.

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Claude Fable 5: Claude Fable 5 scores higher on the Intelligence Index. Claude Fable 5 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 60.0 vs 25.0). Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run at $0.13/1M blended tokens — about 12.9× cheaper.

Capability: intelligence, coding and agentic work

On the composite Intelligence Index the Claude Fable 5 scores 60.0 versus 25.0. For software development, the Coding Index puts Claude Fable 5 ahead (76.5 vs 39.3). On agentic, multi-step tool-use tasks, Claude Fable 5 measures stronger. Composite indices summarize many evaluations, but always test on your own workload before committing.

Context window and speed

The Claude Fable 5 accepts up to 1 million tokens per request, which sets how much documentation, transcript or code it can reason over at once. In measured throughput, Claude Fable 5 generates faster (65 vs 54 tokens/s), which matters for interactive apps and high-volume pipelines.

Pricing and access

At blended per-token rates, Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run ($0.13 vs $1.68 per 1M tokens). Gemma 4 26B A4B is open weights and Claude Fable 5 is proprietary api. Open-weight models can be self-hosted, trading per-call cost for infrastructure you manage; for production also weigh rate limits, throughput and data-residency requirements.

The verdict

Both are credible choices in the ai model comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Gemma 4 26B A4B better than the Claude Fable 5?

Claude Fable 5 is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Claude Fable 5 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 60.0 vs 25.0).

What is the main difference between the Gemma 4 26B A4B and the Claude Fable 5?

Claude Fable 5 leads overall capability (Intelligence Index 60.0 vs 25.0). Gemma 4 26B A4B is the cheaper model to run at $0.13/1M blended tokens — about 12.9× cheaper.

Which is better value?

Gemma 4 26B A4B offers more intelligence per dollar (5.4× the Intelligence-Index-per-cost of the alternative), making it the stronger value for high-volume use. It is also open-weight, so self-hosting can reduce costs further at scale.

Which should I choose?

Choose the Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the lowest cost per token at scale. Choose the Claude Fable 5 if you need the strongest overall reasoning and accuracy.

Methodology

Large language models are compared on independent leaderboard metrics: an Intelligence Index (a composite of reasoning and knowledge evaluations), Coding and Agentic indices where measured, community arena Elo, maximum context window, a blended API price per million tokens (weighted across cache-hit, input and output rates), and measured output speed in tokens per second. Where a model ships multiple reasoning-effort variants, we report its strongest variant. Benchmarks capture only part of real-world quality, which also depends on tool use, latency, safety and task fit — and this space moves quickly, so figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.

ER
EquivalentTo Research
Data & Benchmarks Team

We compile published benchmark results (Cinebench 2024, Geekbench 6, AnTuTu v10, 3DMark), manufacturer specifications and market pricing from nine regions into normalized, comparable datasets. Every figure traces to a named public source listed on each page.

Benchmark leaderboard compilationMulti-market pricing normalizationUnit & currency conversion
✓ Reviewed by EquivalentTo Editorial Review, Data Quality & Methodology.
Last updated 2026-07-01
Gemma 4 26B A4B profile → Claude Fable 5 profile → Compare something else

Related comparisons