Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Fable 5.1

Anthropic

82.74/100

Estimated · Public rank #1

90% interval 71.2–94.3

Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Updated September 1, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Xiaomi logo
Model B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Xiaomi

68.9/100

Supported · Public rank #21

90% interval 59.5–78.3

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 68.9, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Claude Fable 5.1

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.

    Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
Claude Fable 5.1 only
15
MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
5
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Fable 5.1
81.2
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
57.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Claude Fable 5.1
65.0
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
48.0
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
68.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
90.0
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1
$0.035
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1
$0.65
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Fable 5.1
$0.75
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Fable 5.1

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

Anthropic Fable 5.1 launch

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Fable 5.1

Not sourced

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5.1

Reasoning

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Proprietary

License

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Fable 5.1

2026-09-01

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

2026-04-22

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 68.9, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence23 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude Fable 5.155.80%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1

    Claude Fable 5.152.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.141.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Fable 5.131.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Fable 5.177.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass@3

    Claude Fable 5.181.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified Pass³

    Claude Fable 5.173.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon Verified avg. turns

    Claude Fable 5.123.7 turns
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro63.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro72.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro62.70%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 5.181.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Fable 5.189.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Fable 5.154.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Fable 5.167.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude Fable 5.187.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 5.173.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 5.1—
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Fable 5.197.50%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Fable 5.190%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Fable 5.165%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro48%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Fable 5.160.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro34%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5.1 leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Fable 5.1 has the higher public score estimate, 82.74 versus 68.9, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 1, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.