Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 66.9% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2025-12-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1330 |
| SciCode | 66.9% | 25.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1443 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | 737.95 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), MiMo-V2-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 31.7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1420 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1425 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), MiMo-V2-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1429 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1420 |
| LMArena German | — | 1395 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1392 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1409 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1375 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1404 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than MiMo-V2-Flash?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and MiMo-V2-Flash share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.