Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 42.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 0.3% for Claude Opus 4 and 12% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- 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 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 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 | 56 | 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: 47.2 (#62), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1504 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1637 |
| SciCode | — | 51.3% |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1482 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1468 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 63% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1501 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | 1259 |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1434 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1475 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1456 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1463 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1463 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1400 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1451 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 47.2 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 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.