Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (Xiaomi) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.
Snapshot as of 9 September 2026
As of 9 September 2026, Claude Fable 5.1 holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#3 vs #21); MiMo-V2.5-Pro is 57.5× cheaper per output token ($0.87/1M vs $50.00/1M); and MiMo-V2.5-Pro ships open weights.
Evidence: 5 public benchmark observations across 5 boards · 5 public benchmark observations across 5 boards. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.
Benchmark scores: Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Public benchmark boards where Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro has a published result
Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro: common questions
Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Fable 5.1 ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 9 September 2026: #3 against #21. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
Is Claude Fable 5.1 cheaper than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper on output tokens: $0.87/1M against $50.00/1M. Input tokens are $10.00/1M for Claude Fable 5.1 and $0.435/1M for MiMo-V2.5-Pro. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $45.00 for Claude Fable 5.1 versus $1.30 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 97.1% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Both publish a 1M-token context window.
Which is better for coding, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Arena coding: Claude Fable 5.1 1517, MiMo-V2.5-Pro 1520 — MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads. AA Terminal-Bench 2.1: Claude Fable 5.1 91.4%, MiMo-V2.5-Pro 65.2% — Claude Fable 5.1 leads.
Are Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro open-weight models?
Claude Fable 5.1: API only. MiMo-V2.5-Pro: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.
Where can I run Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
ModelCap currently lists 4 API providers for Claude Fable 5.1 and 7 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.
How current is this Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro comparison?
Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 9 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.