Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Claude Opus 5 and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 70.9% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#21 and #57 of 65 models), so Claude Opus 5 leads overall.

  • Claude Opus 5 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (71.5% vs 33.1%).
  • MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.020 overall average cost per sample.
  • Claude Opus 5 is faster: 8.2s vs 16.3s per sample.

Compare Claude Opus 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.

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

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Score by taskClaude Opus 5MiMo V2.6 Flash
Reasoning
71.5
33.1
Counting
70.3
49.5
OCR
68.0
49.7
Object Detection
54.4
37.8
Identification
90.6
76.0

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 7, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 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
Image TaggingNot listedSupported
Both support 9 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
70.9%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.0003
Avg speed / sample8.21s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
54.4%
$0.027
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)
70.3%
$0.0096
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)
90.6%
$0.0072
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)
68.0%
$0.022
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
56.1%
Transcription
92.7%
Structured JSON
85.2%
Text localization
40.5%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
65.8%
$0.043
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
85.2%
Structured JSON
88.7%
Text localization
42.6%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
71.5%
$0.010
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.018
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at a lower cost. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.

Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.

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 5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 70.9% (#21 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 5 leads with 71.5% 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 $0.020. Claude Opus 5 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 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.2s 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.