Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare Claude Opus 5 and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.

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.

Models in this comparison

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

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 71.5% to 33.1%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 78.3% (#16 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.017 per sample), while Claude Opus 5 is faster (7.4s vs 9.2s per sample).

Claude Opus 5MiMo V2.6 Flash

Claude Opus 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.140
Output $/1M$25.00$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Image Tagging
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
78.3%
60.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.017$0.0003
Avg speed / sample7.38s9.20s
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)
93.2%
$0.020
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
OCR (high)
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
Data Extraction (low)
89.7%
$0.0080
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
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 roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. 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. 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 Opus 5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 78.3% (#16 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) 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 $0.017. 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 7.4s per inference against 9.2s. 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.