Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 6 categories and MiMo-V2.5-Pro in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 42.6 to 26.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro specifications
Claude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
ProviderAnthropicXiaomi
Noometry Index50.545.2
Released2025-11-012026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K1.05M
Max output64K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.43
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.87
Results tracked6927

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
LMArena WebDev14941479
LMArena Coding15041503
ALE-Bench1,025899.8
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
SciCode—50.2%
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%34.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761488
DTBench89.9%84.5%
LMCA44.5%29.5%
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
CritPt—4%
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
ProofBench36%22%
LMArena Math14631481
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
LMArena Expert14871503
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
LMArena Non-English14381449
LMArena Chinese14701507
LMArena French14711488
LMArena German14491458
LMArena Japanese14161412
LMArena Korean14241437
LMArena Russian14471450
LMArena Spanish14581471

Instruction Following Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
LMArena Instruction Following14781477

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
LMArena Longer Query14801483
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2.5-Pro
LMArena Text14511465
LMArena Creative Writing14451440
EQ-Bench Creative Writing16871493
LMArena Multi-Turn14661477
EQ-Bench 4—1208

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 18× 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-V2.5-Pro?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 47.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper