Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
3.9pts
winning →
70.19/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 9 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
16
MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
9
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 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 66.27. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

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 4.7 (Adaptive) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔMiMo-V2.5-Pro
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 21.4MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin← 12.0MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 6.7MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · MiMo-V2.5-Pro

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 57.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 7.1
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 48%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 6.7
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 68.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. 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.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MMiMo-V2.5-Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%68.4%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%29.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%94.2%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 49.8%38.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 14951265Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%38.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Claw-EvalSource —63.8%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —72.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —2.4%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —62.70%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —873Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —43.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —65.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —73.3%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%57.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%68.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%60.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%50.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%73.3%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
CritPtSource 12.0%4.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
GPQASource 94.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 94.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 54.7%48%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%34%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%42.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%86.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%33.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%3.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%22.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%24.5%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA Openness IndexSource —38.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251298Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%79.9%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 64.3% and 57.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Accuracy is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 68.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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 23, 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.