Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
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 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 29 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 2
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 29
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding 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 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus 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 4.1 Opus.
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 4.1 Opus | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin← 17.3 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLESource | — | 48% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | 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 |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1207 | 1298 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 79.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 45.88.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 57.2. MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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.