The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.5 to 30.7. MiMo-V2-Flash is 133.3x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 54.5 to 30.7, ranking #4 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5.1 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 133.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Fable 5.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Fable 5.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 54.5 and ranks #4 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose MiMo-V2-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 133.3x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
MiMo-V2-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
54.5
#4
30.7
#123
Reasoning
51.8
#6
30.8
#119
Coding
35.3
#29
17.5
#124
Agents
39.8
#5
8.1
#140
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.30 / M
Context window
1,000,000
256,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
MiMo-V2-Flash
Tool use
26.9#24
6.2#151
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 15 for MiMo-V2-Flash

1 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while MiMo-V2-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2-Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 100.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 166.7x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5.1 is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Fable 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Flash's 256,000 tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input256,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Fable 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.

Claude Fable 5.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Fable 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2-Flash uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Fable 5.1

Proprietary

Closed source

MiMo-V2-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16.

Claude Fable 5.1 is 9 months newer than MiMo-V2-Flash.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

3 weeks ago

8mo newer
MiMo-V2-Flash

Dec 16, 2025

9 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5.1 is available from Anthropic. MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi.

Claude Fable 5.1

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

MiMo-V2-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2-Flash.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.5 to 30.7. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and MiMo-V2-Flash is made by Xiaomi. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Fable 5.1 compare to MiMo-V2-Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores OSWorld 2.0: 77.9%, CursorBench v3.2: 73.4%, Humanity's Last Exam: 65.0%, GDPval-AA: 61.8%, Terminal-Bench 4.0: 55.8%. MiMo-V2-Flash scores AIME 2025: 94.1%, Arena-Hard v2: 86.2%, MMLU-Pro: 84.9%, HMMT 2025: 84.4%, GPQA: 83.7%.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash is 100.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. MiMo-V2-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.30/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2-Flash supports 256K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (54.5 vs 30.7), context window (1.0M vs 256K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and MiMo-V2-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons