Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Pro #17 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and MiMo-V2-Pro share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 0 to MiMo-V2-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 31
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Pro only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 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 4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 68.59 versus 67.78. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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.
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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin→ 9.9 | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.8%B 78%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 2.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 95% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 57.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 36.68% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | 15.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | 78% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 42.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 40.3% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 87.0% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 28.3% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | 4.9% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 26.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 29.9% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 68.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 67.78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.8% and 78%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 68.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.