Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs MiMo-V2.5
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 36.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 54% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 16% for MiMo-V2.5.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 43.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | 1438 |
| SciCode | 54.5% | 43.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1469 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | 513.95 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), MiMo-V2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1450 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 54% | 16% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1436 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1460 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1247 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1468 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1421 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1306 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1363 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1395 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | 1416 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1434 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1445 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1445 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 43.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and MiMo-V2.5 share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.