Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and MiMo-V2.5 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 6 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 31
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.32 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 76.7 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 80.4% to 65.8%.
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 Sonnet 5 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 576.7 | Margin← 20.6 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 581.9 | Margin← 16.1 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 588.3 | Margin← 9.3 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 557.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 80.4%B 65.8%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 14.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 88.3%B 81%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 7.3CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 88.3%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 63.2%B 56.1%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 7.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 63.2%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 51M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Sonnet 5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | 65.8% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 81.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1607 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1388 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 39.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 28.2% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 63.2% | 56.1% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 28.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | 65.8% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 61.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.6% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 88.3% | 81% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 77% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1314 | 1291 | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.32 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 80.4% and 65.8%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.9 versus 65.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 79. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.