Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2.5-Pro in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 40.0 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 37.1% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 29.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 45.2 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1479 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1503 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 899.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SciCode | — | 50.2% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1488 |
| DTBench | 80% | 84.5% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 29.5% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 34.4% |
| CritPt | — | 4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1481 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 22% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1503 |
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1449 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1488 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1458 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1412 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1437 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1450 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1471 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1477 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1483 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1465 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1440 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1477 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1493 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1208 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27.