Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 9 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 22.3.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1637 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1504 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SciCode | — | 51.3% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1482 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| CritPt | — | 12% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1468 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 63% |
| 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-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1501 |
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1259 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1434 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1475 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1456 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1463 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1463 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1400 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1451 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.