Model comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #158 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and MiMo-V2-Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 7 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 4
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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 42.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.4 against 72.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 72.7% to 73.4%.
Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 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 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-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4 Sonnet72.7 | Margin→ 0.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 72.7%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 0.7SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4 Sonnet40 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4 Sonnet1.33 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | Claude 4 Sonnet reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4 Sonnet200K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | MiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic6 benchmarks
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.5% | 24.7% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 68.3% | 65.6% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.0% | 8.0% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.2% | -48.5% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 22.4% | 15.2% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 40.8% | 75.1% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
| GPQASource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4 Sonnet | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 45.4% | 39.9% | Claude 4 Sonnet leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 42.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 73.4%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 72.7. 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.