The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.7 to 45.7.

Anthropic · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 55.7 to 45.7, ranking #2 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.

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

Choose Claude Fable 5.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 55.7 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
  • 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-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
55.7
#2
45.7
#29
Reasoning
52.8
#5
43.2
#42
Coding
35.6
#28
36.6
#21
Agents
41.3
#3
33.3
#25
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5.1
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Tool use
30.3#18
28.1#22
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Claude Fable 5.1 · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash

1 shared

Claude Fable 5.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Terminal-Bench 4.0), while MiMo-V2.6-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Fable 5.1 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Fable 5.1 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Fable 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1 month newer than Claude Fable 5.1.

Claude Fable 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

3 weeks ago

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

3w newer

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

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-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5.1
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 55.7 to 45.7. Claude Fable 5.1 is made by Anthropic and MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-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-V2.6-Flash scores CyberGym: 95.1%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 87.6%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, MiMo Cyber Bench: 77.2%, Toolathlon-Verified: 73.6%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports an unknown number of 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-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (55.7 vs 45.7), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Fable 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons