Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 46.7 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5 scores higher in 9 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5 leads 88.4 to 37.9.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 66.3 | 46.7 |
| Released | 2026-06-07 | 2026-09-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $50 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 61 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 67.0 (#4), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1626 | 1618 |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1538 |
| DeepSWE | 69.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.5% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 47% | — |
| SciCode | 61% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 63.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,041 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Fable 5: 54.1 (#2), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 63.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 16.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 41.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 74.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1230 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,680 | — |
Reasoning Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.8 (#4), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1508 | 1511 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 81.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 91.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 28.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 41% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 39.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 39.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 52% | — |
| DTBench | 98.4% | — |
| LMCA | 61.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 95% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.13 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 163.6 | — |
Math Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 88.4 (#5), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1497 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 95% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 62.3 (#22), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1534 | 1548 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.7% | — |
Multimodal Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 45.6 (#14), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1326 | 1265 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 38.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 35.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1496 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Claude Fable 5: 57.6 (#8), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1483 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1546 | 1532 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1481 |
| LMArena French | 1509 | — |
| LMArena German | 1486 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1493 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1503 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Fable 5: 78.8 (#7), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1503 | 1490 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Fable 5: 46.3 (#22), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1510 | 1500 |
Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5 leads
Claude Fable 5: 76.1 (#5), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32)
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1491 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1494 | 1465 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1463 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1943 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1340 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Fable 5 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Claude Fable 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 66.3 to 46.7 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 37× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5 lists at $10 and $50.
Is Claude Fable 5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
Claude Fable 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 53.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5 has 61 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14.