Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo-V2-Omni
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; MiMo-V2-Omni unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and MiMo-V2-Omni share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 40 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to MiMo-V2-Omni.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 40
- MiMo-V2-Omni only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Omni 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 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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 66. 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 74.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 88.6% to 74.8%.
Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for MiMo-V2-Omni.
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 4.8 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | Margin← 1.6 | MiMo-V2-Omni74.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-OmniNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-OmniNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-OmniNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-OmniNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 88.6%B 74.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 13.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; MiMo-V2-Omni scored 74.8%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Omni | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2-OmniNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | MiMo-V2-OmniNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | MiMo-V2-OmniNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | MiMo-V2-Omni262K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Omni | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 | 1600 | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 94.4% | 91.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1354 | — | Not comparable |
| 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 | — | 45.2% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Omni | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | 74.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 58.3% | 34.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 36.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Omni | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 35.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 82.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 19.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | -17.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 18.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 44.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Omni | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Omni | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | 53.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2-Omni?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 88.6% and 74.8%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2-Omni?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 74.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.