Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 54.5 to 22.3.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 50.3 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1629 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1534 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,158 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SciCode | — | 60.9% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 59.5% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1512 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| CritPt | — | 26.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1494 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 70% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1543 |
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1264 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1529 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1493 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1501 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1492 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1468 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1464 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19.