Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 0 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 31 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 4
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 31
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or 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; 2 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-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 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-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 57.2 against 49. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro 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.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1265 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.3% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 62.70% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 873 | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 48% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 33.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 3.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 22.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 24.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1298 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 79.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 47.74.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 48. MiMo-V2.5-Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 49. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
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.