Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 42.9
- Estimated · #103/153
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude 4.1 Opus vs MiMo-V2-Omni
Updated September 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score estimate, 57.78 versus 42.02, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
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
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
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
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 42.9
- Estimated · #103/152
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 72.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 49.5
- Estimated · #84/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 63.0
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2-Omni
- 64.1
- #70/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | MiMo-V2-Omni | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 42.9Estimated · #103/153 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 42.9Estimated · #103/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 72.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 49.5Estimated · #84/183 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 63.0Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 64.1#70/123 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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 estimate, 57.78 versus 42.02, but the 90% score intervals 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 estimate, 57.78 versus 42.02, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
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 September 15, 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.