Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

64.8/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 50.5–79.1

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Updated August 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
MiMo-V2-Omni

Xiaomi

62.4/100

Supported · Public rank #47

90% interval 52.2–72.6

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 62.36, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Sonnet 5

    Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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.

Shared results
1
Claude Sonnet 5 only
18
MiMo-V2-Omni only
1
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5
76.7
MiMo-V2-Omni
74.8
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
81.9
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
57.4
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
88.3
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

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-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiMo-V2-Omni 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Sonnet 5

1M

Anthropic model overview

MiMo-V2-Omni

262K

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 pricing

MiMo-V2-Omni

No comparable hosted API rate

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

MiMo-V2-Omni

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

MiMo-V2-Omni

2026-03-18

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, 64.78 versus 62.36, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented window (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 evidence20 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Sonnet 514.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Sonnet 584.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 581.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 585.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 563.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 578.3%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 528.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 542.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Sonnet 561.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-SWE

    Claude Sonnet 546.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    Claude Sonnet 540.3%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • 3DCodeBench

    Claude Sonnet 539.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 543.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Claude Sonnet 588.3%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 577%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 62.36, 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-Omni?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. 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-Omni?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

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-Omni?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 15, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo-V2-Omni

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.