# Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

> Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-mimo-v2-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2-Flash in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 54.8 to 36.1.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
- MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 41.3 |
| Rank | 47 | 138 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.14 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $0.28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1494 | 1330 |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1443 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | 737.95 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 25.9% |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1420 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 44.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.09 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 36% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1487 | 1425 |
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1429 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | 1395 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1420 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1392 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1409 |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28)
- MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1375 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1404 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than MiMo-V2-Flash?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2-Flash share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.