Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs MiMo-V2-Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

45.88/100
Margin
8.2pts
winning →
54.06/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and MiMo-V2-Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 17 to MiMo-V2-Flash.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 4.1 Opus only
2
MiMo-V2-Flash only
17
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2-Flash 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-Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 54.06 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 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 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-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus and MiMo-V2-Flash
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔMiMo-V2-Flash
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin← 1.1MiMo-V2-Flash73.4
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-Flash84.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · MiMo-V2-Flash

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 73.4%
    Winner: Claude 4.1 OpusΔ 1.1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. Claude 4.1 Opus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputMiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 outputMiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sMiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/sMiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sMiMo-V2-Flash2.14 sClaude 4.1 Opus reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KMiMo-V2-Flash256KMiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
JobBenchSource 21.9%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —12.0%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —83.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —16.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —833Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%73.4%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
AA Coding IndexSource —49.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —25.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
AA-LCRSource —31.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%24.7%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
GPQASource —83.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —84.9%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
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
AIME 2025Source —94.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1207—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource —39.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 73.4%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 73.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 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.