Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 #16 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2.5 share 7 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 39 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 4 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 39
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
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 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.1 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 53.4% to 56.1%. 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 4.6 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.
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 4.6 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin← 12.0 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin← 7.2 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin→ 1.7 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 53.4%B 56.1%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2.7SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.3%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 0.6MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 77.3%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.4%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 0.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 65.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 62.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 46.89% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | 16.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | 56.1% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | 77.9% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | 1291 | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 53.4% and 56.1%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 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 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 65.8. 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 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 77.3. 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.