Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Claude Fable 5.1 
MiMo-V2.5-Pro Verdict
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 59.1.
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is stronger in instruction following, long context.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 31× cheaper ($0.653 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.3 | 59.1 |
| Agents & tools score | 67.4 | 51.2 |
| Coding score | 78.4 | 58.4 |
| Composite score | 76.6 | 62.4 |
| Human preference score | 71.3 | 61.7 |
| Knowledge score | 75.9 | 57.6 |
| Maths score | 77.0 | 43.0 |
| Reasoning score | 71.9 | 67.5 |
| Instruction following score | – | 77.0 |
| Long context score | – | 66.4 |
| Blended price $/M | $20.00 | $0.653 |
| Output speed | 40 tok/s | 36 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 299.8 s | 60.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 90.2% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 57.9% | – |
| SciCode | 62.0% | 50.2% |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | – |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | 22.0% |
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1468 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1522 | 1496 |
| LMArena Coding | 1517 | 1521 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1764 | 1475 |
| LMArena Agent | 14.5 | -5.1 |
| LiveBench | 83.4% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 86.4% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 66.1% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 97.0% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 80.3% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 89.5% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | – | 26.4 |
| IFBench | – | 79.9% |
| AA-LCR | – | 79.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 3.3 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 43.2% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 86.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 35.7% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 50.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 94.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 81.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 84.6% |
| LegalBench | – | 77.1% |
| CorpFin | – | 61.4% |
| TaxEval | – | 73.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 57.3% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 74.0% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 82.6% |
| Vals Index | – | 41.0 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | – | 1208 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.0% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro: questions
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
- Claude Fable 5.1 (max) leads on quality: 70.3 vs 59.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.1 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro for coding?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in coding (78 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro for agentic tasks?
- Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in agentic tasks (67 vs 51 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper: $0.653 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
- Claude Fable 5.1 streams faster: 40 against 36 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.