Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 18 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 4
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.58 versus 54.06. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 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 Haiku 4.5 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 Haiku 4.5.
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 Haiku 4.5 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | Margin→ 0.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.3%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 0.1SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; 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 Haiku 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | MiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.7% | 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 |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1152 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 73.4%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 73.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.