Roboflow

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Claude Opus 4.8 and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 58.3% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#40 and #57 of 65 models), so Claude Opus 4.8 leads overall.

  • Claude Opus 4.8 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (53.0% vs 33.1%).
  • MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.021 overall average cost per sample.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 is faster: 7.7s vs 16.3s per sample.

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Score by taskClaude Opus 4.8MiMo V2.6 Flash
Reasoning
53.0
33.1
OCR
61.5
49.7
Identification
84.4
76.0
Counting
54.0
49.5
Object Detection
38.6
37.8

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 6, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 4.8MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.140
Output $/1M$25.00$0.280
Vision Tasks
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
58.3%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.021$0.0003
Avg speed / sample7.66s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
38.6%
$0.026
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)–
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
54.0%
$0.0076
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)–
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
84.4%
$0.0067
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)–
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
61.5%
$0.025
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
53.0%
Transcription
70.8%
Structured JSON
82.4%
Text localization
24.2%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
62.1%
$0.038
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
54.8%
Transcription
67.0%
Structured JSON
83.5%
Text localization
23.6%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
53.0%
$0.0078
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
52.3%
$0.0078
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 4.8

Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.

Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 4.8 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 58.3% (#40 of 65) against 49.2% (#57 of 65) 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 Opus 4.8 leads with 53.0% 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 $0.021. Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 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.

Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.7s per inference against 16.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.