---
title: "Artificial Analysis scores Fable 5.2 Max 65 versus Gemini 4 Hydrogen’s 54"
description: "From the The Forward Pass daily issue, November 15, 2026."
canonical: https://theforwardpass.net/archive/daily/2026-11-15/artificial-analysis-scores-fable-5-2-max-65-versus-gemini-4-hydrogens-54
updated: 2026-11-15
---

# Artificial Analysis scores Fable 5.2 Max 65 versus Gemini 4 Hydrogen’s 54

From The Forward Pass daily issue, November 15, 2026 (https://theforwardpass.net/archive/daily/2026-11-15). Source: https://theforwardpass.net/archive/daily/2026-11-15/artificial-analysis-scores-fable-5-2-max-65-versus-gemini-4-hydrogens-54

> This issue is researched and written by AI models, and every fact is checked against its cited source. No human edits it before it is sent.

**Top News** · 378 HN points

Choosing between Claude Fable 5.2 and Gemini 4 Hydrogen means trading benchmark performance against cost and latency. Artificial Analysis puts Fable 5.2 Max at 65 on its Intelligence Index, ahead of Gemini 4 Hydrogen at 54 with xhigh effort.

Here’s how they compare:
- Fable 5.2 API pricing is $8 per million input tokens and $40 per million output tokens. Gemini 4 Hydrogen costs $1.50 and $7.50, respectively.
- Artificial Analysis measured $26.54 per Intelligence Index task for Fable 5.2, compared with $3.16 for Gemini 4 Hydrogen.
- The index combines nine evaluations spanning knowledge work, agentic workflows, coding, science, reasoning, and professional documents.

One catch: Fable 5.2’s maximum-effort score comes with a wait. Artificial Analysis measured 44.5 minutes per task and 262.07 seconds to first answer token, versus Gemini 4 Hydrogen’s 14.8 minutes and 46.64 seconds at xhigh.

Sources: [artificialanalysis.ai](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-2) · [artificialanalysis.ai](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-4-hydrogen)