Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and MiMo-V2.5 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 8 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 9
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 53.61. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 55.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50% to 65.8%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
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 Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | Margin← 21.1 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | Margin→ 10.4 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 15.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | MiMo-V2.51M | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | 65.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | 46.89% | Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 13.6% | — | Not comparable |
Knowledge1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50% and 65.8%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 56.1. MiMo-V2.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.