Model comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2-Pro in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 90% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro.
- MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
- MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-01 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | 1433 |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1476 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | 785.17 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | 25.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1457 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.9% |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1447 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1478 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |
Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1416 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1469 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | 1366 |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1427 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | 1457 |
Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1445 |
Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1455 |
| CL-bench | — | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 6.9% |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads
Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1415 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than MiMo-V2-Pro?
Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 43.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2-Pro share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.