Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and MiMo-V2.5 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 33 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 6 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 33
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 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 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78.6 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 91% 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.
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 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | Margin← 22.5 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | Margin→ 13.9 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | Margin← 9.3 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | 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 91%B 81%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 10CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.3%B 56.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 8.2SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 69.4%B 65.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 3.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | 65.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins5 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | 56.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | 65.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 91% | 81% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | 1291 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 91% and 81%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 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 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 65.1. 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.