Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 36.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 63% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1637 |
| SciCode | 66.9% | 51.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1504 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 31.7% | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1482 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 100% | 63% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1468 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1501 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1259 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1434 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1475 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1456 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1463 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1463 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1400 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1451 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 53.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.