Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Updated September 28, 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
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. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
- 43
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Sonnet 5.5How the comparison works
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.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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.
79.6Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7
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.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
43 Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
4 Shared
8 MiMo-V2.6-Flash only
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 66.1
- Supported · #10/111
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 79.6
- Estimated · #3/136
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 79.2
- #7/27
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- 73.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 83.3
- Unranked · 7 rankable rows
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- 68.8
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 80.9
- Supported · #6/160
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 16 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 66.1Supported · #10/111 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 9 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 79.6Estimated · #3/136 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 79.2#7/27 | 73.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 83.3Unranked · 7 rankable rows | 68.8Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 80.9Supported · #6/160 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 16 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 | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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 5.5
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.00028
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.00784
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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 5.5
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.00616
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5.5
claude-sonnet-5-5
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationMiMo-V2.6-Flash
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 5.5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingMiMo-V2.6-Flash
$0.0028 per 1M cached input tokens
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 launchDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5.5
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5.5
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationMiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5.5
2026-09-28
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
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: $0.13 vs $0.00784. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.00616.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
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 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5.5 and $0.00028 on MiMo-V2.6-Flash; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.00784; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.00616. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence55 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash28.80%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 5.564.5%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turnsSourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)
Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash73.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
AutomationBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash52.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash87.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash61.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash95.1%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash6.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash67.9%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash26.0%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5—MiMo-V2.6-Flash87.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.50.747SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.50.963SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
Math
55 public results · 4 shared
Watch Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 28, 2026