Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side.

Compare Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 76.4% to 33.1%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 60.6% (#53 of 60) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0065 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 10.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5MiMo V2.6 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.140
Output $/1M$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
83.8%
60.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0003
Avg speed / sample10.78s9.20s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 60.6% (#53 of 60) 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 76.4% 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 $0.0065. 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 10.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.