Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs MiMo-V2.5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
47.74/100
Margin
10.9pts
winning →
Xiaomi
58.62/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MiMo-V2.5 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 11 to MiMo-V2.5.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
4
MiMo-V2.5 only
11
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 56.1 against 49.

MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet 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. MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude 3.5 SonnetMiMo-V2.5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputMiMo-V2.5Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableMiMo-V2.5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableMiMo-V2.5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet200KMiMo-V2.51MMiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMiMo-V2.5Result
Claw-EvalSource 62.3%Not comparable
MM-ClawBenchSource 23.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 46.89%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 16.9%Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMiMo-V2.5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 49%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 56.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.8%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMiMo-V2.5Result
GPQASource 59.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMiMo-V2.5Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 2.069%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMiMo-V2.5Result
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source 87.7%Not comparable
CharXivSource 81%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 77.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1291Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 47.74.

Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.1 versus 49. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 21, 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.