Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
80
MiMo-V2-Flash
62
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #7 · MiMo-V2-Flash unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Coding
+7.5 difference
Knowledge
+18.3 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
MiMo-V2-Flash
$null / $null
$0 / $0
46 t/s
129 t/s
1.01s
2.14s
200K
256K
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash 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-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.9% and 73.4%.
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.5 versus 66.2. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 65.9. 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.