Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched at 49.9 and 44.8 on the LLM Stats Score. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.1x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 49.9 and 44.8.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 1.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Haiku 5.5
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- cost matters — it's about 1.1x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
36 reported for Claude Haiku 5.5 · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Program Bench, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while MiMo-V2.6-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.
Claude Haiku 5.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.10/1M tokens) is 1.4x cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.50/1M tokens) is 1.8x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Haiku 5.5 is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Haiku 5.5's 1,000,000 tokens. Only Claude Haiku 5.5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude Haiku 5.5
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Haiku 5.5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Haiku 5.5 was released on 2026-10-07, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is 1 month newer than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
Oct 7, 2026
2 weeks ago
2w newerSep 22, 2026
1 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Claude Haiku 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Claude Haiku 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without MiMo-V2.6-Flash's cutoff date.
Jun 2026
—
Provider Availability
Claude Haiku 5.5 is available from Anthropic. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi.
Claude Haiku 5.5
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.