Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and MiMo V2.6 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 83.0% to 35.1%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.014 per sample) and faster (8.5s vs 12.8s per sample).
Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.02T total, 42B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $0.435 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $0.870 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 85.5% | 62.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.014 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 12.76s | 8.47s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8 | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8 | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 87.8% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2 | 90.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9 |
| OCR (high) | 87.2% ±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8 | 87.5% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 81.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 80.4% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: Overview
Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.
On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is the flagship omni-modal foundation model in Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 series, released as open weights alongside a Flash variant and a 9B distillation of Qwen3.5. It uses a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with 1.02 trillion total parameters and roughly 42 billion activated per token, paired with a hybrid attention design that interleaves sliding-window and global attention layers to support a context window of about one million tokens. Dedicated encoders handle non-text inputs, including a vision encoder of roughly 681 million parameters and an audio tokenizer stack, so the model accepts text, images, video, and audio and returns text.
Post-training centers on large-scale reinforcement learning across thousands of interactive environments, combined with agentic grading, self-correction cold start, and a multi-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation stage that extends behavior to tasks that are hard to verify automatically. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#3 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro. 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 5.5 leads with 83.0% against 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.014. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Pro is priced at $0.43 per 1M input tokens and $0.87 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.5s per inference against 12.8s. 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.