Model comparison
Claude Fable 5 vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Pro #17 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and MiMo-V2-Pro share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 3 to MiMo-V2-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Fable 5 only
- 22
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Pro only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Fable 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 83.68 to 67.78. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Fable 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.2 against 78. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 95% to 78%.
Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 1M for MiMo-V2-Pro.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Fable 5 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Fable 589.2 | Margin← 11.2 | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Fable 584.6 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Fable 557.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 95%B 78%Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 17SWE-bench Verified: Claude Fable 5 scored 95%; MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Fable 5$10 input / $50 output | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Fable 5Not available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Fable 5Not available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Fable 51M+ | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Claude Fable 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1748 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 52.8% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 98.5% | 95% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 62.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1574 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 26.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 62.9% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 36.68% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 95% | 78% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 80% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VulcanBench v3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 76.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 60.2% | 42.5% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 59.9% | 40.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.6% | 87.0% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 53.3% | 28.3% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 40.2% | 4.9% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 61.4% | 26.8% | Claude Fable 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 54.9% | 29.9% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 63.5% | 68.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 67.78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 95% and 78%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 78. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.