Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 4 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multimodal, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 40.2 to 30.9.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 44.4 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-09-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.8 (#55), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1516 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.5 (#39), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.4 (#104), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1481 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 40.2 (#80), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1391 | 1477 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 43.9 (#82), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1384 | 1516 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 30.9 (#101), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | 1266 |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 49.0 (#133), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1439 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1501 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1424 |
| LMArena French | 1370 | — |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1318 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1388 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 77.3 (#26), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1463 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.5 (#167), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1465 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.4 (#85), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1459 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1386 | 1408 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1460 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.8 versus 44.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13.