Head-to-head on the Towards AI writing benchmark: same 9 real YouTube scripts, five runs each, scored blind by a three-family judge panel. Claude Fable 5 (max) leads overall, 90.3 to 80.2.
I use Gemini daily for image generation and deep-research work, so let me be fair up front: this result is about scriptwriting in my voice, not Gemini overall. And on that job, it's not close. Fable 5 scores 90.21 to Gemini 3.1 Pro's 80.21, the widest gap in this set of matchups, with Gemini sitting at rank 53 on the board. The two tells: writing craft, 80.82 vs 89.6, and length adherence, where Gemini lands at 75.91 with a deviation near 9, meaning scripts regularly come back the wrong size. Continuity and emotion trails too, 78.40 vs 88.95, and that's the metric that decides whether anyone is still watching at minute eight. What Gemini has going for it: speed, about a minute per script, and a mid-tier price around twelve cents. But it costs roughly six times what Grok 4.5 does while ranking well below it, which makes it hard to place. For this specific job, Fable earns the dollar. Gemini, I'll keep for everything else.
Pick Fable 5 if you're publishing the scripts; the craft, pacing, and length gaps here are too wide to edit away cheaply.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro if you want fast, one-minute drafts inside a Google stack and treat the output as raw material.
Blue bars: Claude Fable 5 (max). Orange bars: Gemini 3.1 Pro (default). Same 0–100 scale; the bold bar wins that metric.
| Claude Fable 5 (max) | Gemini 3.1 Pro (default) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 90.3 | 80.2 |
| Writing Elo | 2575 | 1577 |
| Run-to-run spread (± overall std) | 1.610 | 2.420 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 0.908 | 0.118 |
| Avg latency (s) | 452.8 | 63.8 |
| Open weights | No | No |
Full scorecards: Claude Fable 5 (max) · Gemini 3.1 Pro (default). How scoring works: methodology.
← All comparisons