Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5 vs MiniMax M2.7

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

83.68/100
Margin
19.6pts
← winning
64.11/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Fable 5 #2 (Supported); MiniMax M2.7 #36 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Fable 5 and MiniMax M2.7 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Fable 5; 17 to MiniMax M2.7.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Fable 5 only
16
MiniMax M2.7 only
17
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Fable 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniMax M2.7 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 64.11. 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 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 84.3% to 57%.

Claude Fable 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $50.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.30 input / $1.20 output per 1M tokens for MiniMax M2.7. That is roughly 41.7x on output cost alone. Claude Fable 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while MiniMax M2.7 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Fable 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M+, compared with 200K for MiniMax M2.7.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Fable 5 and MiniMax M2.7
CategoryClaude Fable 5ΔMiniMax M2.7
CodingClaude Fable 589.2Margin← 35.9MiniMax M2.753.3
AgenticClaude Fable 584.6Margin← 27.6MiniMax M2.757.0
MultimodalClaude Fable 557.9MarginNo overlapMiniMax M2.7Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Fable 5B · MiniMax M2.7

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 57%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 27.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Fable 5 scored 84.3%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 57%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80%B 56.2%
    Winner: Claude Fable 5Δ 23.8
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Fable 5 scored 80%; MiniMax M2.7 scored 56.2%. Claude Fable 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Fable 5$10 input / $50 outputMiniMax M2.7$0.3 input / $1.2 outputMiniMax M2.7 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Fable 5Not availableMiniMax M2.745 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Fable 5Not availableMiniMax M2.72.53 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Fable 51M+MiniMax M2.7200KClaude Fable 5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.3%57%Claude Fable 5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 85%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 17481158Claude Fable 5 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 52.8%25.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 98.5%84.8%Claude Fable 5 leads
GDPval-AASource 62.4%32.9%Claude Fable 5 leads
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
ToolathlonSource —46.3%Not comparable
MLE-Bench LiteSource —66.6%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource —62.7%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —48.7%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —10.6%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —40.40%Not comparable
CodingClaude Fable 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 95%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 80%56.2%Claude Fable 5 leads
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%52.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 60.2%47.0%Claude Fable 5 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source —75.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —51.9%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.5%Not comparable
Multi-SWE BenchSource —52.7%Not comparable
VIBE-ProSource —55.6%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —39.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —27.04%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —71.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-LCRSource 70.0%68.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
CritPtSource 28.6%0.6%Claude Fable 5 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 59.9%38.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.6%87.4%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-HLESource 53.3%28.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 40.2%0.7%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 61.4%26.1%Claude Fable 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 54.9%34.4%MiniMax M2.7 leads
GPQA-DSource —87.0%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —80.8%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —80.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 38.6%—Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 57.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13321275Claude Fable 5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Fable 5MiniMax M2.7Result
AA-IFBenchSource 63.5%75.7%MiniMax M2.7 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Fable 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 83.68 to 64.11. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 84.3% and 57%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Fable 5 or MiniMax M2.7?

Claude Fable 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.6 versus 57. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.