Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 44.2
- Estimated · #94/154
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Updated September 21, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
51.2Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not comparable · BenchAlign
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
9 Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
2 Shared
10 MiMo-V2.6-Pro only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 9
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 51.2
- Estimated · #59/156
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 19.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 51.7
- Estimated · #71/186
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 34.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 44.2Estimated · #94/154 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 9 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 51.2Estimated · #59/156 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 19.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 51.7Estimated · #71/186 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 34.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 4.5: 61.4%MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 82%Normalized gap 20.6Claude Sonnet 4.5 source MiMo-V2.6-Pro source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.00087
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.02436
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.01812
- Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 4.5MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
200K
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
$0.0036 per 1M cached input tokens
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 launchDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Non-Reasoning
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.5
2025-09-01
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
2026-09-22
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.02436. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.01812.
- Context tradeoff
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.550%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.561.4%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro82%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
VITA-Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.517.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.548.51%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.527.7%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro62.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro76.9%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro53.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.90%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro89.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro94.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro17.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.577.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro71.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro26.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 4.5—MiMo-V2.6-Pro89.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Sonnet 4.513.6%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.583.4%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
Math
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.5 and $0.00087 on MiMo-V2.6-Pro; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.02436; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.01812. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 21, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.