Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 15 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 17
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.6 only becomes the better choice if knowledge 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 16 shared benchmark results across 6 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
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 to 65.07. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 65.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.1% to 68.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 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-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
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 4.6 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | Margin← 18.0 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | Margin← 11.9 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | Margin→ 3.2 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.1%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 9.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 49%B 48%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 1HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | 63.8% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 79.5% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | 62.70% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1265 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.3% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 873 | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 50.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 60.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | 48% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 86.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 22.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 65.07. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.1% and 68.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 65.2. Inside this category, τ²-bench results 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.