Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5 and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 55.3% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#49 and #57 of 65 models), so Claude Sonnet 5 leads overall.

  • Claude Sonnet 5 wins 4 of the 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (43.0% vs 33.1%).
  • MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.0074 overall average cost per sample.
  • Claude Sonnet 5 is faster: 5.9s vs 16.3s per sample.

Compare Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

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

Score by taskClaude Sonnet 5MiMo V2.6 Flash
Reasoning
43.0
33.1
OCR
59.4
49.7
Counting
56.8
49.5
Identification
81.3
76.0
Object Detection
36.1
37.8

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 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$2.00$0.140
Output $/1M$10.00$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
55.3%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0074$0.0003
Avg speed / sample5.86s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
36.1%
$0.011
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)
56.8%
$0.0030
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)
81.3%
$0.0027
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)
59.4%
$0.0078
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
52.2%
Transcription
88.6%
Structured JSON
78.3%
Text localization
13.1%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
59.5%
$0.015
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
54.8%
Transcription
88.3%
Structured JSON
76.6%
Text localization
11.6%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
43.0%
$0.0032
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
43.0%
$0.0043
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5

Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models.

The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.

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 Sonnet 5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 55.3% (#49 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 Sonnet 5 leads with 43.0% 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 $0.0074. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 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 Sonnet 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.9s 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.