Coding
Like-for-like- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 74.5
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 74.8
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- MiMo-V2-Omni leads
Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs MiMo-V2-Omni
Updated August 1, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
20 confirmed releases in the last 30 daysSee provider release alerts
MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score, 62.16 versus 44.71, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
MiMo-V2-Omni
MiMo-V2-Omni leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
MiMo-V2-Omni
MiMo-V2-Omni has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Claude 4.1 Opus only
1 Shared
1 MiMo-V2-Omni only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 1
- MiMo-V2-Omni only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2-Omni | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 74.5 | 74.8 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | MiMo-V2-Omni leads |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude 4.1 Opus: 74.5%MiMo-V2-Omni: 74.8%Normalized gap 0.3Claude 4.1 Opus source MiMo-V2-Omni source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.0525
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $4.05
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 OpusMiMo-V2-Omni
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
MiMo-V2-Omni
262K
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not published
MiMo-V2-Omni
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
MiMo-V2-Omni
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
MiMo-V2-Omni
Proprietary
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
MiMo-V2-Omni
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
MiMo-V2-Omni
2026-03-18
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score, 62.16 versus 44.71, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- MiMo-V2-Omni has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score, 62.16 versus 44.71, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 1, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs MiMo-V2-Omni
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.