Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro

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

Compare Claude Sonnet 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.

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

Models in this comparison

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

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 89.7% to 81.1%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#36 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0064 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5 is faster (4.8s vs 8.5s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5MiMo V2.6 Pro

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5MiMo V2.6 Pro
OrganizationAnthropicXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters1.02T total, 42B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.435
Output $/1M$10.00$0.870
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.4%
62.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0064$0.0008
Avg speed / sample4.84s8.47s
By task
Object Detection (low)
36.1%
$0.011
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
Object Detection (high)
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
Counting (low)
56.8%
$0.0030
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
Counting (high)
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
Identification (low)
81.3%
$0.0027
76.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1
$0.0004
Identification (high)
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
OCR (low)
91.7%
$0.0078
90.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9
$0.0008
OCR (high)
87.5%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6
$0.0048
Data Extraction (low)
89.7%
$0.0030
81.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4
$0.0005
Data Extraction (high)
80.4%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5
$0.0013
Reasoning (low)
43.0%
$0.0032
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
Reasoning (high)
43.0%
$0.0043
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026

Claude Sonnet 5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: 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. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.

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 Pro

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 Sonnet 5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.4% (#36 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 Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Claude Sonnet 5 leads with 89.7% against 81.1%. 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 $0.0064. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 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.

Claude Sonnet 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.8s per inference against 8.5s. 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.