Roboflow

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 5.5MiMo V2.6 Flash

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026

PropertyClaude Haiku 5.5MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parametersundisclosed309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.140
Output $/1M$0.500$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
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 / sample13.23s9.20s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2
$0.0006
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
68.2%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2
$0.0010
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
68.9%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3
$0.0003
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
73.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3
$0.0004
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
83.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0002
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0003
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
90.1%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0
$0.0006
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
OCR (high)
88.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6
$0.0009
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
Data Extraction (low)
85.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6
$0.0002
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
87.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6
$0.0002
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
68.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9
$0.0004
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
74.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5
$0.0006
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Claude Haiku 5.5

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

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.