# Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

> Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-8-vs-mimo-v2-6-pro
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 7 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 54.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is APEX-Agents: 48.9% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 59.5% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 50.3 |
| Rank | 13 | 49 |
| Context | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.43 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $0.87 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1629 |
| SciCode | 53.5% | 60.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1534 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | 1,158 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | 59.5% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 20.9% | 26.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1512 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 69% | 70% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1494 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1543 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | 1264 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1529 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | — |
| LMArena German | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1493 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1501 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1492 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1468 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1464 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 55.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19.