Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #17 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 61 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 13 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 61
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 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 18 shared benchmark results across 4 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 69.38. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 89.5 against 57.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 79.2% 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 | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 32.3 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 22.4 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 16.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 57.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 22SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 48%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 16.7HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins33 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1265 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 29.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 38.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | 878 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 65.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 62.70% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 57.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 60.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 50.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 48% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 34% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 42.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 86.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 33.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 3.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 22.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1298 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 79.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 69.38. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 79.2% and 57.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 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 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 57.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 68.4. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.