Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
1.1pts
← winning
63.15/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Omni #40 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2-Omni share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 45 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 0 to MiMo-V2-Omni.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Opus 4.5 only
45
MiMo-V2-Omni only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Omni only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 64.22 versus 63.15. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

MiMo-V2-Omni is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiMo-V2-Omni gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 and MiMo-V2-Omni
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔMiMo-V2-Omni
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin→ 3.1MiMo-V2-Omni74.8
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · MiMo-V2-Omni

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.9%B 74.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 6.1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 80.9%; MiMo-V2-Omni scored 74.8%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KMiMo-V2-Omni262KMiMo-V2-Omni lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%45.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%91.2%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2-Omni wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%74.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%36.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%66.7%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
CritPtSource 0.3%1.1%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%35.0%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%82.8%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%19.9%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-17.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%18.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%44.4%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%69.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5MiMo-V2-OmniResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%53.5%MiMo-V2-Omni leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 63.15. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.9% and 74.8%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.8 versus 71.7. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.