Claude Sonnet 4 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
MiMo-V2-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 30.7 to 24.2. MiMo-V2-Flash is 40.0x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiMo-V2-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 30.7 to 24.2, ranking #123 overall.
In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2-Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 40.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2-Flash also accepts a larger context window (256,000 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 Sonnet 4
- you want predictable pricing at $3.00/M input and $15.00/M output
Choose MiMo-V2-Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 30.7 and ranks #123 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 40.0x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 256,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2025
- 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
8 reported for Claude Sonnet 4 · 15 for MiMo-V2-Flash
Claude Sonnet 4 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Terminal-Bench), while MiMo-V2-Flash is better at 3 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA, SWE-Bench Verified).
MiMo-V2-Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Sonnet 4 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 30.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Sonnet 4 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 50.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 4 is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2-Flash accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to Claude Sonnet 4's 200,000 tokens. Claude Sonnet 4 can generate longer responses up to 64,000 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Sonnet 4 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.
Claude Sonnet 4 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Claude Sonnet 4
MiMo-V2-Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Sonnet 4 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.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Sonnet 4 was released on 2025-05-22, while MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16.
MiMo-V2-Flash is 7 months newer than Claude Sonnet 4.
May 22, 2025
1.3 years ago
Dec 16, 2025
9 months ago
6mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude Sonnet 4 is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi.
Claude Sonnet 4
MiMo-V2-Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 4 and MiMo-V2-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Sonnet 4 vs MiMo-V2-Flash.