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

Anthropic

80.9/100

Supported · Public rank #3

90% interval 78.7–83.1

Claude Fable 5 vs MiniMax M3

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

MiniMax logo
Model B
MiniMax M3

MiniMax

63.91/100

Supported · Public rank #51

90% interval 56.5–71.3

Decision reading

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.9 versus 63.91, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

11 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Agentic work

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

    Claude Fable 5

    Claude Fable 5 leads on the public agentic lane, 74.8 to 43.2, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

    Confidence: stronger

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    MiniMax M3

    MiniMax M3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiniMax M3 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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
11
Claude Fable 5 only
7
MiniMax M3 only
16
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like
Claude Fable 5
74.8
Supported · #3/151
MiniMax M3
43.2
Supported · #106/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 9 public rows
Reading
Claude Fable 5 leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Claude Fable 5
83.5
Supported · #2/181
MiniMax M3
53.9
Supported · #65/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Claude Fable 5 leads

Coding

Directional only
Claude Fable 5
76.9
Supported · #2/183
MiniMax M3
50.6
Estimated · #68/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 10 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Directional only
Claude Fable 5
76.2
#11/22
MiniMax M3
78.5
#5/22
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Claude Fable 5
78.3
#54/120
MiniMax M3
93.5
#4/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Math

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
Not ranked
MiniMax M3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Fable 5
62.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiniMax M3
52.0
#34/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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
$0.035
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0009
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Fable 5
$0.65
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.0186
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Claude Fable 5
$0.9
Fits in one request
MiniMax M3
$0.03
Fits in one request

MiniMax M3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

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

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Fable 5

1M

Anthropic model overview

MiniMax M3

1M

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 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

MiniMax M3

$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Fable 5

Reasoning

MiniMax M3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

License

Claude Fable 5

Proprietary

MiniMax M3

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Fable 5

2026-06-09

MiniMax M3

2026-06-01

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 has the higher public score, 80.9 versus 63.91, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.65 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.9 vs $0.03.
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 evidence34 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Fable 534.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 584.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M366%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Fable 585%
    Source
    MiniMax M370.1%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Fable 580.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M353.6%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M383.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M374.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M374.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M376.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M319.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M34.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Fable 595%
    Source
    MiniMax M380.5%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Fable 580%
    Source
    MiniMax M359%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • FrontierSWE v2

    Claude Fable 548.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Fable 553.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Fable 584.3%
    Source
    MiniMax M366.0%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • cursorBench31

    Claude Fable 570.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Fable 570.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Fable 589.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Fable 589.8%
    Source
    MiniMax M382.2%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Fable 595.0%
    Source
    MiniMax M375.0%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M342.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VIBE V2

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M350.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SVG-Bench

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M363.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • KernelBench Hard

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M328.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M348.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Fable 593.2%
    Source
    MiniMax M392.7%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Fable 591.5%
    Source
    MiniMax M384.2%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M385.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    Claude Fable 538.6%
    Source
    MiniMax M3—

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Fable 557.9%
    Source
    MiniMax M345.1%
    Source

    Claude Fable 5 leads this result

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M391.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M378.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M384.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Claude Fable 5—
    MiniMax M385.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Fable 5 has the higher public score, 80.9 versus 63.91, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Fable 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 76.9 to 50.6. MiniMax M3 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M3?

Claude Fable 5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 74.8 to 43.2, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.

Which costs less, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.035 on Claude Fable 5 and $0.0009 on MiniMax M3; repository review costs $0.65 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.9 and $0.03. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Fable 5 vs MiniMax M3

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.