Free to start

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemma 4 31B. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Claude Fable 5.1 has the larger context window. Google: Gemma 4 31B has the lower published input-plus-output rate and more Credits provider routes. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

$63.3/1MAnthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 cheapest route

$0.45365/1MGoogle: Gemma 4 31B cheapest route

not enough dataAnthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 fastest measured p50 TTFT

665 msGoogle: Gemma 4 31B fastest measured p50 TTFT via crusoe

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1Google: Gemma 4 31B

Model idanthropic/claude-fable-5.1google/gemma-4-31b-it

Publisher Anthropic Google AI Studio

AI IQ IQ 137#5 IQ 101#116

Context1,000,000 tokens262,144 tokens

Credits provider routes116

Cheapest route$63.3/1M$0.45365/1M

Cached input$0.26375/1M$0.03798/1M to $0.26375/1M

Privacy postureprovider posture varieshas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)

Fastest measured p50 TTFTnot enough data665 ms via crusoe

Highest measured throughputnot enough data146 tok/s via crusoe

Recent route uptime range100.00%0.00% to 100.00%

Modes chat messages chat

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Google: Gemma 4 31B routes

Overview16 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.349 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.248 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash48 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K344 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B42 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Google: Gemma 4 31B40 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b40 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B35 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="anthropic/claude-fable-5.1",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 or Google: Gemma 4 31B?

Is Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 or Google: Gemma 4 31B cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $63.3/1M for Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.45365/1M for Google: Gemma 4 31B. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 or Google: Gemma 4 31B faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is not enough data for Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 and 665 ms for Google: Gemma 4 31B. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1 and Google: Gemma 4 31B with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between anthropic/claude-fable-5.1 and google/gemma-4-31b-it. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.