Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #158 (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 Sonnet and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 18 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 3
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet 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 13 shared benchmark results across 6 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 42.79. 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 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-V2.5-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4 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 4 Sonnet | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4 Sonnet72.7 | Margin← 15.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Agentic | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4 SonnetNot 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 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4 Sonnet40 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4 Sonnet1.33 s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet200K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 52.3% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.66% | 62.70% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| JobBenchSource | 18.4% | — | 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 |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.3% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | 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 Sonnet wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.5% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 86.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.0% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.2% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.4% | 22.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 40.8% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLESource | — | 48% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 45.4% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 42.79.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.