BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mimo v2 Pro

Full profiles: Claude Fable 5.2 (Anthropic) and Mimo v2 Pro (Xiaomi): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 6 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Fable 5.2 is ahead of Mimo v2 Pro on quality (69.4 vs 59.1 on the BenchLeader Index). Claude Fable 5.2 leads in every category we measure both in.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Fable 5.2 scores 69.4 on the BenchLeader Index and Mimo v2 Pro scores 59.1 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Fable 5.2 costs $16.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 3 benchmarks both models have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Fable 5.2 benchmarks max Anthropic Mimo v2 Pro benchmarks XiaomiAdd a third model

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Fable 5.280 vs 52 category scoreHigh
ReasoningClaude Fable 5.278 vs 64 category score; Humanity's Last Exam (AA) 74.3% vs 30.4%High
Long documentsClaude Fable 5.266 vs 59 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.3% vs 68.3%High
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Mimo v2 Pro has an Arena rating (63 category score)Not comparable
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 59.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
  • Mimo v2 Pro is stronger in agents & tools, human preference, instruction following, maths.

At a glance

SpecClaude Fable 5.2Mimo v2 Pro
DeveloperAnthropicXiaomi
Released9 Nov 202618 Mar 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,000,000
Compared atClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Mimo v2 Pro
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$8.00 / $40.00 / $0.200–

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Mimo v2 ProLeader
Reasoning78.463.8Claude Fable 5.2
Coding80.252.1Claude Fable 5.2
Agents & tools–69.4not comparable
Maths–62.9not comparable
Knowledge81.7–not comparable
Instruction following–67.9not comparable
Human preference–63.2not comparable
Long context66.458.6Claude Fable 5.2

On one chart

Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingLong contextClaude Fable 5.2, Reasoning: 78.4Claude Fable 5.2, Coding: 80.2Claude Fable 5.2, Long context: 66.4Mimo v2 Pro, Reasoning: 63.8Mimo v2 Pro, Coding: 52.1Mimo v2 Pro, Long context: 58.6

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Maths, Knowledge, Instruction following, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 3 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3, Mimo v2 Pro leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Mimo v2 ProLeader
BenchLeader Index69.459.1Claude Fable 5.2

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.

MeasureClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Mimo v2 Pro
Blended price per 1M tokens$16.00–
Input / output per 1M$8.00 / $40.00– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.200–
Price per task: chat reply$0.015–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.120–
Price per task: code edit$0.108–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.640–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.024–
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.289–
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$26.54–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)274k–
Of which reasoning193k–
Output speed72 tok/s–
Time to first answer3.0 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Fable 5.2 (max) scores 69.4 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Claude Fable 5.2 (high) scores 68.9 in 3 s, Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh) scores 68.7 in 3 s. Mimo v2 Pro scores 59.1. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

66 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Mimo v2 Pro
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader69.459.1
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.252.1
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader81.7–
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.458.6
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader78.463.8
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–69.4
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–63.2
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader–67.9
Maths scoreBenchLeader–62.9
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$16.00–
Output speedBenchLeader72 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader3.0 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1476
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.8%†–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–87.0%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis74.3%30.4%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis80.2%–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize92.5%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize94.9%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis35.4%0.3%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis76.5%–
MysteryMechanismVals AI51.8%†–
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–15.7%
CL-bench LifeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–6.9%
Coding
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1503
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)–1434
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench79.2%†–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis67.7%–
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI83.3%†–
ProgramBenchVals AI19.0%†–
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI62.3%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI93.8%†–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–785.2
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%–
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis56.2%–
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis48.8%–
Show all 66 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Fable 5.2 (max)Mimo v2 Pro
Agents & tools
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench82.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench86.9%†–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis–40.9%
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis–95.0%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis1831–
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI69.5%†–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI5.0%†–
Legal Research BenchVals AI46.1%†–
Tax Agent BenchVals AI32.1%†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†–
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI55.7%†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis76.4%–
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis24.2%–
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey7.2%–
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis1785–
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis73.3%–
Maths
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1451
Knowledge
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench81.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench94.5%†–
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis66.8–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI83.7%†–
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI77.4%†–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis79.1%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis40.7%–
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI67.7%–
Instruction following
IFBenchArtificial Analysis–68.8%
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1446
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1448
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1424
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1467
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1467
Multimodal
LiveBench DesignLiveBench85.1%†–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1271–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis83.3%68.3%
Composite
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench84.9%†–
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis64.6–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis–28.6
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis–279
Vals IndexVals AI71.3†–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI63.6%†–
Vals Science IndexVals AI63.7%†–

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Mimo v2 Pro: BenchLeader Index 59.7 → 59.1.
  • Mimo v2 Pro: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • Mimo v2 Pro: BenchLeader Index 60.2 → 59.7.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mimo v2 Pro: questions

Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than Mimo v2 Pro?
Claude Fable 5.2 (max) leads on quality: 69.4 vs 59.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Fable 5.2 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Is Claude Fable 5.2 or Mimo v2 Pro better for coding?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher in coding (80 vs 52 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
Claude Fable 5.2 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 59). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Fable 5.2 vs Mimo v2 Pro?
Across the 3 benchmarks both have, Claude Fable 5.2 leads 3, Mimo v2 Pro leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Fable 5.2 ahead.
When was Claude Fable 5.2 released?
Claude Fable 5.2 was released on 9 Nov 2026.