Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash is 66.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 7 benchmarks (AIME 2025, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while MiMo-V2-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2-Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 50.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 83.3x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Flash's 256,000 tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input256,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Tue Apr 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Opus 4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.

Claude Opus 4.6 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiMo-V2-Flash uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

MiMo-V2-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16.

Claude Opus 4.6 is 2 months newer than MiMo-V2-Flash.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

2 months ago

1mo newer
MiMo-V2-Flash

Dec 16, 2025

3 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

MiMo-V2-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher AIME 2025 score (99.8% vs 94.1%)
Higher BrowseComp score (84.0% vs 58.3%)
Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 83.7%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (53.1% vs 22.1%)
Higher SWE-bench Multilingual score (77.8% vs 71.7%)
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (80.8% vs 73.4%)
Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (65.4% vs 38.5%)
Xiaomi
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and MiMo-V2-Flash is made by Xiaomi. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 93.0%. MiMo-V2-Flash scores AIME 2025: 94.1%, Arena-Hard v2: 86.2%, MMLU-Pro: 84.9%, HMMT 2025: 84.4%, GPQA: 83.7%.
MiMo-V2-Flash is 50.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. MiMo-V2-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.30/M output via xiaomi.
Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2-Flash supports 256K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 256K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and MiMo-V2-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.