Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 10.2.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 1.05M |
| Max output | — | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1637 |
| SciCode | — | 51.3% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1504 |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1482 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 63% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1468 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1501 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1259 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1434 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1511 |
| LMArena French | — | 1475 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1456 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1463 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1463 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1400 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1451 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.