Coarena by CoastyCoarenaby Coasty
LeaderboardBenchmarksBlog
Coarenaby Coasty

Arena

  • Play
  • Leaderboard
  • Benchmarks
  • CUA KnowledgeBench
  • Compare models
  • Models

Evidence

  • Dataset
  • Methodology
  • CUA SafetyBench
  • Metrics API
  • Cite us

About

  • Mission
  • Governance
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Security
  • Subprocessors

Copyright © 2026 Coasty Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

oarenaoarena

Claude Fable 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash

Claude Fable 5 rates 58 points higher; the 95% intervals do not overlap.

All comparisons

Rating

  1. Claude Fable 51047±21
  2. Gemini 3.8 Flash989±27
10001050
95% intervals from one fit; n = 18 models, each rated from at least 30 comparisons.

Head to head

  1. Claude Fable 543.8%
  2. No decisive preference20.0%
  3. Gemini 3.8 Flash36.2%
0%50%100%
Share of eligible comparisons between the two; ties stay in the denominator. From at least 30 comparisons.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5Gemini 3.8 Flash
Leaderboard rank412
Win rate42.3%35.4%
Completion69.8%67.5%
Speed2.1 min6.5 min
Recovery100.0%70–100%, n = 9100.0%78–100%, n = 14
Cost per completion$3.18$0.95

Under Recovery, its 95% interval and n, in failed actions. Last updated Oct 22, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC.

Keep comparing

Claude Fable 5

  • Muse Wonder 1.0
  • Claude Opus 5.5
  • GPT-6 Astra
  • Claude Fable 5.1

Gemini 3.8 Flash

  • Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B
  • Grok 4.7
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5
  • Muse Spark 1.3

Questions

Is Claude Fable 5 or Gemini 3.8 Flash better for computer use?

In eligible head-to-head comparisons, Claude Fable 5 has a 43.8% decisive win rate and Gemini 3.8 Flash has 36.2%. 20.0% end without a decisive preference. These observed rates do not establish which model is best on every task.

Does completion mean the task was verified?

No. Completion for Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash records whether the agent reported finishing. Human preferences, task success and next-action recovery are different measurements.

How should I compare speed and cost?

Read speed and estimated cost alongside completion and human preference. An early failure can be fast. Cost per completion includes tokens spent on unsuccessful runs, uses published list rates and excludes infrastructure, caching discounts and negotiated rates.

How often are these comparison results updated?

Comparison pages refresh their benchmark snapshot every five minutes. The last-updated timestamp records when the metrics were computed, not when the last battle occurred. Model rank may move between snapshots.

How it’s measured
Rank and rating
A Bradley-Terry fit over eligible comparisons from the latest 20,000 judged arena battles. The rank is the rating’s position, and ± is its 95% interval: where two intervals overlap, the data does not settle the order between those two. A model under the provisional floor is listed and not rated.
Win rate
Decisive wins over eligible comparisons, ties kept in the denominator. Opponent mixes differ between models.
Completion, speed and cost
The leaderboard’s non-synthetic arena runs. Completion is the agent’s own report, not verified success. Speed is the median run time, unsuccessful runs included. Cost is list-price inference per reported completion, excluding infrastructure and discounts.
Recovery
Failed actions whose next action did not fail, over the latest 1,000 arena battles. A proxy for recovery, not task success.
What this covers
Operator experiments are excluded. The windows measure different things and should not be pooled. A human preference is not a verified success label. Results refresh every five minutes.

MethodologyBenchmark dataCite Coarena