Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side.
Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Haiku 5.5 leads 68.9% to 33.1%.
Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 60.6% (#53 of 61) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0005 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 13.2s per sample).
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026
| Property | Claude Haiku 5.5 | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 309B total, 15B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.100 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $0.500 | $0.280 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.2% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0005 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 13.23s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 65.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2 | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | 68.2% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2 | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 68.9% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3 | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3 | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 90.1% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0 | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 |
| OCR (high) | 88.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6 | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 85.9% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6 | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 87.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6 | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 68.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9 | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5 | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.
Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Haiku 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 60.6% (#53 of 61) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads with 68.9% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0005. Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.2s per inference against 13.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.