Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
11.0pts
← winning
74/100
3 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; MiMo-V2.5-Pro unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 25 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 5 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
25
Claude Opus 4.8 only
28
MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
5
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5-Pro only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 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

Claude Opus 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 76.4 against 57.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 69.2% to 57.2%.

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 4.8 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔMiMo-V2.5-Pro
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4Margin← 19.2MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin← 14.7MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 11.9MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · MiMo-V2.5-Pro

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 69.2%B 57.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 12
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 48%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 9.9
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 68.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 6.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableMiMo-V2.5-ProNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MMiMo-V2.5-Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%68.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16001266Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%62.70%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%29.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%94.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%38.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354872Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —63.8%Not comparable
TAU3-BenchSource —72.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —2.4%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —38.2%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%57.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%68.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%60.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%43.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%50.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%65.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%73.3%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
CritPtSource 20.9%4.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%48%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%34%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%42.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%86.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%33.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%3.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%22.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%24.5%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
AA Openness IndexSource —38.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12811310MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8MiMo-V2.5-ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%79.9%MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 69.2% and 57.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 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 4.8 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA Terminal-Bench 2.1 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 68.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase 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 12, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.