Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2.5 share 7 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 4 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 52
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 71.7 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 68.5% to 81%. MiMo-V2.5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 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-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 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 Opus 4.5 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 15.6 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | Margin→ 9.1 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin→ 3.2 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 68.5%B 81%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 12.5CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 70.6%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 7.3MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.3%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 6.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.1%B 56.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | MiMo-V2.51M | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | 65.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | 62.3% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | 46.89% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 56.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | 77.9% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | 81% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | 1291 | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 68.5% and 81%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 56.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 62.6. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 69.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.