Model Comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 556 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 476 Elo apart. Even Claude Fable 5.1's lowest-rated configuration, Claude Fable 5.1 (high), ranks above MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on). Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Claude Fable 5.1 is #3 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed is #17. Cost per script: $3.56 for Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) and $0.177 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickClaude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort)
Pick Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) for the version you'll record, where even its weakest script outscores MiMo's best.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) for testing angles fast, with a draft back in about half a minute at $0.177.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed returns a script in about half a minute for $0.177, by far the fastest setting on this page. The writing goes to Claude Fable 5.1, the #3 model of 78 against the #17 model. Fable's max effort setting sits 556 Elo above MiMo with ranges nowhere near each other, and Claude Fable 5.1 (high) rates above MiMo too. One figure shows the gap well: Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) scores 82.8 on its weakest script, above MiMo's best script at 82.3. Fable's extra thinking pays off as well. Max effort adds 201 Elo over high with separate ranges, and the drafts get steadier, for about twice the price and twice the wait. At $3.56, that's about 20 times MiMo's price, with a wait of minutes instead of seconds. I'd use MiMo while I'm still testing angles and want drafts back right away, and Fable at max effort once I know what I'm recording.
Disclosure: Claude Fable 5.1 comes from the same lab as one of the four judges, Claude Opus 5.5. The other three sit outside its lab, so it is never scored by its own lab alone (how the panel works). The judge analysis measures how much each judge favors its own lab.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Claude Fable 5.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) | 2553 | 2513 to 2587 | 84.5 | $3.56 | 12.3 min | N/A | #4 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 (high) | 2352 | 2302 to 2403 | 83.4 | $1.85 | 6.3 min | N/A | #9 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | 1997 | 1954 to 2037 | 80.6 | $0.177 | 0.5 min | 10,745 | #34 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included. N/A under Reasoning Tokens means the board has no separate reasoning count for that route.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) leads MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) by 556 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2513 to 2587 against 1954 to 2037), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Every Claude Fable 5.1 Configuration Ranks Higher. Both Claude Fable 5.1 configurations rank above MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), the only MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed configuration on the board: even Claude Fable 5.1 (high) at Elo 2352 beats its Elo of 1997. Their 95% ranges do not overlap.
- Cheapest Claude Fable 5.1 Configuration Above MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed's Best. The cheapest Claude Fable 5.1 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), at Elo 1997 and $0.177 per script, is Claude Fable 5.1 (high), at Elo 2352 and $1.85 per script. It costs about 10 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Claude Fable 5.1 moves +201 Elo from high to max effort, at about 1.9 times the cost per script.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) scores higher on all nine metrics. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) ahead, with a 8.9-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.13 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 82.8 Script 10 | 78.5 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 86.2 Script 9 | 82.3 Script 7 |
| Range across scripts | 3.4 | 3.8 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) minus MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Claude Fable 5.1 (max effort) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 83.3 | 79.0 | +4.3 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 83.8 | 80.6 | +3.2 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 84.0 | 80.9 | +3.1 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 85.2 | 78.5 | +6.7 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 84.9 | 81.2 | +3.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 85.0 | 81.2 | +3.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 85.3 | 82.3 | +3.0 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 84.7 | 81.3 | +3.4 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 86.2 | 82.3 | +3.9 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 82.8 | 78.8 | +4.0 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons