Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 16 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 9
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash 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 3 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-Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 54.06 versus 53.61. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 84.7 against 83.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 77.2% to 73.4%. 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.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for MiMo-V2-Flash. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. MiMo-V2-Flash 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-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | Margin← 3.8 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | Margin→ 1.3 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.2%B 73.4%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 3.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.4%B 83.7%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 0.3GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. MiMo-V2-Flash 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-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | MiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 12.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 16.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 833 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | 83.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 8.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -48.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1219 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 77.2% and 73.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 83.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 73.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.