Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MiMo-V2-Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 17 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 2
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 17
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash 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 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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-Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 54.06 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 84.7 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49% to 73.4%.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for MiMo-V2-Flash. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. MiMo-V2-Flash 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-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | Margin→ 25.3 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | Margin→ 24.4 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 49%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 24.4SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59.4%B 83.7%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 24.3GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | MiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | 83.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 8.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -48.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49% and 73.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.