Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 66.0
- Supported · #12/151
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 40.8
- Supported · #118/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 70.76 versus 65.41, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
10 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the public agentic lane, 66 to 40.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
13 Claude Sonnet 5 only
10 Shared
3 MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- Shared results
- 10
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 13
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 67.1
- Supported · #20/181
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 55.5
- Supported · #58/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap
Coding
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5
- 64.2
- Supported · #13/183
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 57.1
- Estimated · #36/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 76.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 76.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 77.5
- #13/48
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 93.5
- #6/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 66.0Supported · #12/151 | 40.8Supported · #118/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Knowledge | 67.1Supported · #20/181 | 55.5Supported · #58/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 4 public rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 64.2Supported · #13/183 | 57.1Estimated · #36/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 76.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 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 |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.5#13/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 93.5#6/120 | 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) 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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 80.4%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 68.4%Normalized gap 12.0Claude Sonnet 5 source MiMo-V2.5-Pro sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 48%Normalized gap 9.4Claude Sonnet 5 source MiMo-V2.5-Pro sourceHLE w/o tools
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 43.2%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 34%Normalized gap 9.2Claude Sonnet 5 source MiMo-V2.5-Pro sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 57.2%Normalized gap 6.0Claude Sonnet 5 source MiMo-V2.5-Pro sourceMMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 87.5%MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 84.6%Normalized gap 2.9Claude Sonnet 5 source MiMo-V2.5-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 5
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1M
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5
claude-sonnet-5
Anthropic model overviewMiMo-V2.5-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 5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingMiMo-V2.5-Pro
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewMiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewMiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Proprietary
License
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5
2026-06-30
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
2026-04-22
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
- Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 70.76 versus 65.41, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence26 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 574.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro57.3%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5—MiMo-V2.5-Pro63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Sonnet 5—MiMo-V2.5-Pro72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 5—MiMo-V2.5-Pro62.70%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 582.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro81.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 579.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro74.0%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro48%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro34%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE-Verified
Claude Sonnet 531.0%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Sonnet 580.1%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 588.9%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro82.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 587.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5-Pro84.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 70.76 versus 65.41, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 64.2 to 57.1. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 66 to 40.8, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.