Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Claude Opus 4 and MiMo-V2-Pro score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 43.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 5 categories and MiMo-V2-Pro in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4 leads 27.3 to 22.1.
- MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1476 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1433 |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 785.17 |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1457 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 25.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.9% |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1447 |
| 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: 44.0 (#88), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1478 |
| 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 Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1416 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1469 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1366 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1427 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1457 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1445 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1455 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 6.9% |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1415 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1456 |
| 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-Pro?
Claude Opus 4 and MiMo-V2-Pro score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 43.0), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 43.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and MiMo-V2-Pro share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.