Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 leads MiniMax M3.1 Flash on coding, 87.8 to 55.7 on the Vibe Coding Index, and MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs 66.7x less per output token ($0.60 vs $40.00 per million). Updated November 14, 2026; 30 benchmarks have a result for both.
Claude Fable 5.2 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash: which to pick
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 55.7 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash for output tokens 66.7x cheaper ($0.60 vs $40.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).
- Shared results
- 30
- Claude Fable 5.2 only
- 38
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 scores 87.8 against 55.7.
4 benchmarks behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 leads, 64.6 against 29.1.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1351.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
Claude Fable 5.2
Claude Fable 5.2 leads, 71.3% against 53.8%.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
MiniMax M3.1 Flash takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
Claude Fable 5.2 $0.028, MiniMax M3.1 Flash $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Claude Fable 5.2 87.8 from 4 benchmarks, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 55.7 from 4 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 35.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- ALE-Bench: Claude Fable 5.2 2509.8 against MiniMax M3.1 Flash 217.8, 76.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Claude Fable 5.2 $40.00 against MiniMax M3.1 Flash $0.60 per million output tokens, 66.7x apart.
- Context window
- Claude Fable 5.2 takes 1M tokens, MiniMax M3.1 Flash 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Claude Fable 5.2 | Bars | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 11 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 4 | 2 | ||
| Reasoning | 4 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 3 | 0 | ||
| Web design | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 4 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 28 | 2 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index110
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 79.2% | 68.8% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1838 | 1584 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 65.2% | 25.3% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 93.8% | 73.9% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 19.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | 62.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SciCode | 67.7% | 53.4% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Artificial Analysis run) | 61.6% | 25.8% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| FrontierCode 2.0 | 49.1% | 20.8% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| FrontierSWE | 69.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2509.8 | 217.8 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1915 | 1603 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1738 | 1558 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| SWE-Bench Pro V2 | Not measured | 96.6% | Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured |
| GameBench 2 | 99.1 | 41.0 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| CursorBench 4.0 | 60.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 64.6 | 29.1 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 173.4 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index42
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1402 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1325 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1434 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench research | 94.5% | 76.7% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LiveBench browser | 86.9% | 80.6% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LiveBench long agentic | 82.9% | 25.7% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 32.1% | 32.1% | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 46.1% | 34.1% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | 5.0% | 7.5% | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 83.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 55.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Vals Science Index | 63.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| APEX-Agents | 80.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Remote Labor Index | 41.3% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SpireClimb | 15.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | 88.8% | 82.9% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 51.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.3% | 48.0% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| HLE-Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 80.2% | 28.1% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| CritPt v2, hard subset (Artificial Analysis run) | 76.5% | 32.5% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 93.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI | 98.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| SimpleBench | 94.9% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 79.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| EBR-bench | 90.5% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Scale run) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| GoBench | 2566 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 99.7% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 95.1% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 100.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| ProofBench | 100.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| MathArena | 82.8% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-Omniscience | 66.8 | -6.4 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 94.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| PRBench Finance | 47.1% | 45.6% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| PRBench Legal | 49.0% | 45.1% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1351 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1371 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1396 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1517 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1373 | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LiveBench design | 85.1% | 71.2% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | 71.3% | 53.8% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| LiveBench data analysis | 81.5% | 71.4% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 85.3% | Only MiniMax M3.1 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.3% | 79.7% | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| GDPval-AA | 1831 | 1465 | Claude Fable 5.2 |
| DTBench | 99.2% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| LMCA | 70.6% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Furniture assembly | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Claude Fable 5.2 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Anthropic Claude Fable 5.2 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | MiniMax |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | November 9, 2026 | October 19, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $8.00 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $40.00 | $0.60 |
| Coding index | 87.8 | 55.7 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 4 | 4 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Claude Fable 5.2 better than MiniMax M3.1 Flash for coding?
Pick Claude Fable 5.2 for coding: it scores 87.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 55.7 for MiniMax M3.1 Flash. Pick MiniMax M3.1 Flash for output tokens 66.7x cheaper ($0.60 vs $40.00 per million) and a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens).
Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
Claude Fable 5.2 costs $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens; MiniMax M3.1 Flash costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Fable 5.2 or MiniMax M3.1 Flash?
MiniMax M3.1 Flash, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the Claude Fable 5.2 vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash comparison based on?
30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 14, 2026. Claude Fable 5.2's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and MiniMax M3.1 Flash's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.