Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 13 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 41
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 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 18 shared benchmark results across 6 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
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 64.22. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 62.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 30.8% to 48%. Claude Opus 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro 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-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 14.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin← 10.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin→ 5.8 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 30.8%B 48%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 17.2HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.3%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 9.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.1%B 57.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 0.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | 63.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | 72.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| 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% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | 62.70% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1265 | 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 Opus 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 57.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 50.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 60.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 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% | 48% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 86.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 22.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 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
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 | 1298 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 64.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 30.8% and 48%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 62.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.