Agentic
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Sakana Fugu
- 80.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B vs Sakana Fugu
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality 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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Sakana Fugu
Sakana Fugu has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
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
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
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. Sakana Fugu has no comparable published API token rate.
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.
11 MiniCPM5-1B only
3 Shared
8 Sakana Fugu only
- Shared results
- 3
- MiniCPM5-1B only
- 11
- Sakana Fugu only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 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
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Sakana Fugu
- 59.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Sakana Fugu
- 86.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- 44.0
- Sakana Fugu
- 95.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- 33.1
- Sakana Fugu
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Sakana Fugu
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- Not measured
- Sakana Fugu
- 85.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiniCPM5-1B
- 58.5
- Sakana Fugu
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiniCPM5-1B | Sakana Fugu | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 80.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 59.7 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 86.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 44.0 | 95.5 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 33.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 85.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 58.5 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Sakana Fugu
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. Sakana Fugu has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Sakana Fugu
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. Sakana Fugu has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiniCPM5-1B
- API rate not published
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Sakana Fugu
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate. Sakana Fugu 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.
SpecificationMiniCPM5-1BSakana Fugu
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiniCPM5-1B
131K
Sakana Fugu
1M
API model ID
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiniCPM5-1B
No comparable hosted API rate
Sakana Fugu
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiniCPM5-1B
Not sourced
Sakana Fugu
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiniCPM5-1B
Reasoning
Sakana Fugu
Reasoning
Weight access
MiniCPM5-1B
Open Weight
Sakana Fugu
Proprietary
License
MiniCPM5-1B
Open Weight
Sakana Fugu
Proprietary
Release date
MiniCPM5-1B
2026-05-25
Sakana Fugu
2026-06-22
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Sakana Fugu has the larger documented window (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 evidence22 rows
Agentic
Coding
LiveCodeBench Pro
MiniCPM5-1B22.7%SourceSakana Fugu87.8%SourceSakana Fugu leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
MiniCPM5-1B33.5%SourceSakana Fugu92.9%SourceSakana Fugu leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
MiniCPM5-1B—Sakana Fugu59%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
MiniCPM5-1B—Sakana Fugu80.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
MiniCPM5-1B—Sakana Fugu60.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro
MiniCPM5-1B48.9%SourceSakana Fugu—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
MiniCPM5-1B70.1%SourceSakana Fugu—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
MiniCPM5-1B26.3%SourceSakana Fugu95.5%SourceSakana Fugu leads this result
SuperGPQA
MiniCPM5-1B23.1%SourceSakana Fugu—Not directly comparable
GPQA
MiniCPM5-1B—Sakana Fugu95.5%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
MiniCPM5-1B—Sakana Fugu47.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
MiniCPM5-1B—Sakana Fugu85.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, MiniCPM5-1B or Sakana Fugu?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, MiniCPM5-1B or Sakana Fugu?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniCPM5-1B or Sakana Fugu?
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, MiniCPM5-1B or Sakana Fugu?
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, MiniCPM5-1B or Sakana Fugu?
Sakana Fugu has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch MiniCPM5-1B vs Sakana Fugu
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.