Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 36.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 50% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 63% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash specifications
Claude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderAnthropicXiaomi
Noometry Index58.248.5
Released2026-02-042026-09-21
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M1.05M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.28
Results tracked6819

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena WebDev15471637
LMArena Coding15361504
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—51.3%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts15271482
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—12%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert15461501
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Vision13161259
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English14891434
LMArena Chinese15511511
LMArena French15131475
LMArena Russian14971409
LMArena Spanish15101456
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following15231463

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query15201463
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text15031455
LMArena Creative Writing15051400
LMArena Multi-Turn15131451
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 53.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper