Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Haiku 4.5
58
MiMo-V2-Pro
83
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+4.7 difference
Claude Haiku 4.5
MiMo-V2-Pro
$1 / $5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
1M
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
MiMo-V2-Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 58. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 73.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 78%.
MiMo-V2-Pro 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-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 78%.
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 73.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.