Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
11.0pts
← winning
54.06/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 5 to MiMo-V2-Flash.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
19
MiMo-V2-Flash only
5
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 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

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 54.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 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-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and MiMo-V2-Flash
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔMiMo-V2-Flash
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin→ 18.7MiMo-V2-Flash84.7
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin→ 4.3MiMo-V2-Flash73.4
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-FlashNot measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-FlashNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · MiMo-V2-Flash

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 83.7%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 6.2
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 73.4%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 6.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 79.2%B 84.9%
    Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 5.7
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.2%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputMiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 outputMiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sMiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/sMiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sMiMo-V2-Flash2.14 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KMiMo-V2-Flash256KMiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%83.9%MiMo-V2-Flash leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —12.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —16.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —833Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%73.4%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
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%25.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —49.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%31.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 0.9%0.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
GPQASource 89.9%83.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%84.9%MiMo-V2-Flash leads
HLESource 49%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%24.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%65.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%8.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-48.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%15.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%75.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source —94.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1317—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6MiMo-V2-FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%39.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 89.9% and 83.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 66. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

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.