Model Comparison
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
vs. Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
Comparing 2 AI models · 0 benchmarks · Google, Anthropic
Recommended Pick
AnClaude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)4 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
53.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
81.6 coding index
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback).
Speed gap
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) generates about 1.9x as many tokens per second as Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) leads Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) by 38.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) leads Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) by 38.2 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) wins 4 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Secure AI Chat made in Europe
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) | Top Pick An Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $10.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $50.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $20.00/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Sep 1, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 35.5 tok/s | 65.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1110ms | 268140ms |
| Latency | 49990ms | 268140ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 15.4 | 53.4 |
| Intelligence | 15.4 | 53.4 |
| Coding | 43.4 | 81.6 |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 53.4 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback) reaches a 81.6 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemma 4 31B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Claude Fable 5.1 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Default Fallback)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
