Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
14.5pts
← winning
54.06/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 5 to MiMo-V2-Flash.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Opus 4.6 only
32
MiMo-V2-Flash only
5
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 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 54.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for MiMo-V2-Flash. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. MiMo-V2-Flash 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. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2-Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔMiMo-V2-Flash
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin→ 15.6MiMo-V2-Flash84.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 5.3MiMo-V2-Flash73.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-FlashNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-FlashNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · MiMo-V2-Flash

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 91.3%B 83.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 7.6
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 73.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 7.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 84.9%
    Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 2.9
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputMiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 outputMiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sMiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/sMiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sMiMo-V2-Flash2.14 sClaude Opus 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MMiMo-V2-Flash256KClaude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%83.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —12.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —16.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —833Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%73.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%25.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —49.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%31.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 2.8%0.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
GPQASource 91.3%83.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%84.9%MiMo-V2-Flash leads
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%24.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%65.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%8.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-48.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%15.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%75.1%MiMo-V2-Flash leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source —94.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
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 1328—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%39.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 91.3% and 83.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 68.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.