Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo-V2.5
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 9 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 36.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 69% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 16% for MiMo-V2.5.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 43.4 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1438 |
| SciCode | 53.5% | 43.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1469 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | 513.95 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), MiMo-V2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| 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 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 20.9% | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1450 |
| 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 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 69% | 16% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1436 |
| 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 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1460 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | 1247 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1468 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1421 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1306 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1363 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1395 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1416 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1434 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1445 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1445 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 57× 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-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 43.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and MiMo-V2.5 share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.