Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 86.5% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #59 of 67 models), so Claude Fable 5.2 leads overall.
- Claude Fable 5.2 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (88.1% vs 33.1%).
- MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.031 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Fable 5.2 is faster: 9.3s vs 16.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Nov 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 309B total, 15B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $8.00 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $40.00 | $0.280 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 86.5% | 49.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.031 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.33s | 16.34s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 81.6% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.2 to 81.9 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 83.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 83.7 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 86.5% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 86.5 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 92.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 94.6 | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 94.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 79.5% | 49.7% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.8% | 50.4% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 88.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 89.4 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 92.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 93.4 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Claude Fable 5.2 is a proprietary multimodal model from Anthropic, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text and images and produces text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. Adaptive thinking is always enabled, with an effort setting that controls reasoning. Anthropic positions Fable for demanding reasoning and long-running technical work, including coding and analysis of visual inputs.
Fable 5.2 succeeds Fable 5.1. Anthropic reports improvements in coding, reasoning, and vision, with output generation up to 30% faster than its predecessor. Fable and Mythos 5.2 share an underlying model, with additional cybersecurity and biology safeguards applied to Fable. Model weights are not publicly released.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.2 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 86.5% (#2 of 67) against 49.2% (#59 of 67) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 88.1% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.031. Claude Fable 5.2 is priced at $8.00 per 1M input tokens and $40.00 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Fable 5.2 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.3s per inference against 16.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.