# Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiMo-V2-Pro

> Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 42.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-mimo-v2-pro
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2-Pro in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 21.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.1% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro.
- MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
- MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 42.4 |
| Rank | 18 | 102 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.43 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $0.87 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.4 (#76)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | 1433 |
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1476 |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | 785.17 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 21.3 (#200)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | 25.8% |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | 45.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1457 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 36.7 (#104)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1447 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 40.8 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1479 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.9 (#77)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1416 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1470 |
| LMArena German | 1504 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1366 |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1427 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | 1458 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.2 (#46)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1444 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#133)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 20.7% | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1455 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9)
- MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.9 (#67)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1415 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than MiMo-V2-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 42.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 18× 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-Pro?

MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 43.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

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

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2-Pro share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.