The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Fable 5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Claude Fable 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.2 to 45.6. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 114.3x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Fable 5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 54.2 to 45.6, ranking #6 overall.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Fable 5 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 114.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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

  • overall performance matters — it scores 54.2 and ranks #6 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 5 exact shared results

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 114.3x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • 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
Anthropic
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
54.2
#6
45.6
#29
Reasoning
51.5
#7
42.5
#45
Coding
45.6
#3
36.7
#21
Agents
40.2
#5
33.1
#26
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 5
1 of 5
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.14 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.28 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Fable 5
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Tool use
23.8#34
24.7#29
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for Claude Fable 5 · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash

5 shared

Claude Fable 5 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, ExploitBench, OSWorld-Verified, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while MiMo-V2.6-Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Terminal-Bench 2.1).

Claude Fable 5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Fable 5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 71.4x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Fable 5 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 178.6x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Fable 5 is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Fable 5's 1,000,000 tokens. Only Claude Fable 5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Fable 5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Fable 5 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

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Fable 5 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

Proprietary

Closed source

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Fable 5 was released on 2026-06-09, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 4 months newer than Claude Fable 5.

Claude Fable 5

Jun 9, 2026

3 months ago

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

3mo 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

Provider Availability

Claude Fable 5 is available from Anthropic, DeepInfra. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi.

Claude Fable 5

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.28/1M
* 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 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Fable 5
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Fable 5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Fable 5 leads the LLM Stats Score 54.2 to 45.6. Claude Fable 5 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 compare to MiMo-V2.6-Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Fable 5 scores SWE-Bench Verified: 95.0%, FrontierSWE: 90.0%, OSWorld-Verified: 85.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.3%, SWE-Bench Pro: 80.0%. 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%.

Is Claude Fable 5 cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 71.4x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Fable 5 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Fable 5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Fable 5 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports 1.0M 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 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (54.2 vs 45.6), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.14/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Fable 5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons