Xiaomi’s MiMo V2.5 Pro now matches or beats Claude Opus 4.6 on major coding and agent benchmarks while using 40-60% fewer tokens to get there. That token efficiency gap translates directly into cost savings that make the pricing difference even more extreme than the raw per-token rates suggest.
Here’s the full breakdown.
Architecture comparison
| MiMo V2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Xiaomi | Anthropic |
| Architecture | MoE (1T+ total, 42B active) | Dense (proprietary) |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens (beta) |
| Max output | 32K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Open-source | Coming (weights announced) | No |
| Vision | ❌ | ✅ |
| Tool calling | ✅ | ✅ |
| Agent support | Native long-horizon | Claude Code ecosystem |
V2.5 Pro keeps the same Mixture-of-Experts design from V2 Pro but with significant training improvements. Only 42B parameters activate per forward pass out of 1T+ total, which is why inference costs stay low. Opus 4.6 remains a dense proprietary model where Anthropic hasn’t disclosed the parameter count.
The open-source angle matters. Xiaomi confirmed V2.5 Pro weights will be released, meaning you’ll eventually be able to self-host it. You can’t do that with Opus. For teams that need data sovereignty or want to avoid per-token API costs entirely, that’s a deciding factor. See our AI model comparison for how this fits into the broader landscape.
Benchmark comparison
| Benchmark | MiMo V2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.6 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | 57.2% | 53.4% | MiMo V2.5 Pro |
| ClawEval (score) | 64% | ~66% | Opus 4.6 (slight) |
| ClawEval (tokens used) | ~70K avg | ~120K+ avg | MiMo V2.5 Pro |
| LiveCodeBench | Top-tier | Top-tier | Tie |
| Long-horizon agents | 1000+ tool calls | Limited by caps | MiMo V2.5 Pro |
The SWE-bench Pro result is the headline number. V2.5 Pro scores 57.2% vs Opus 4.6’s 53.4%, a nearly 4-point lead on real-world software engineering tasks. This benchmark tests the model’s ability to resolve actual GitHub issues across popular open-source repositories, so it’s not a synthetic test.
On ClawEval, Opus 4.6 holds a slight edge in raw score (~66% vs 64%). But look at the token usage column. That’s where V2.5 Pro pulls ahead in a way that matters more for production use.
Token efficiency: the real story
This is the most important section of this comparison.
On ClawEval, MiMo V2.5 Pro averages around 70K tokens per task. Opus 4.6 uses 120K+ tokens to achieve a similar (slightly higher) score. That’s roughly 40-60% fewer tokens for comparable results.
Why does this matter? Three reasons:
- Direct cost savings. Fewer tokens means lower bills, even before you factor in the per-token price difference.
- Faster responses. Fewer tokens generated means lower latency. For agent loops that chain dozens of calls, this compounds.
- Context window efficiency. When your model is more concise, you burn through less of your context window per interaction. That means longer productive sessions before you hit limits.
The token efficiency gap isn’t just about V2.5 Pro being “more concise” in its outputs. It reflects a model that reasons more efficiently, needing fewer intermediate steps and less verbose chain-of-thought to reach the same conclusions. For agent workloads where the model calls tools repeatedly, this efficiency compounds across every iteration.
Pricing comparison
| MiMo V2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input (per 1M tokens) | ~$1.00 | $15.00 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | ~$3.00 | $75.00 |
| Typical agent session (50K in / 10K out) | ~$0.08 | ~$1.50 |
| Monthly heavy use (20 sessions/day) | ~$35 | ~$660 |
The per-token pricing alone is a 15-25x difference. But combine that with V2.5 Pro’s token efficiency and the effective cost gap widens further. If V2.5 Pro uses 50% fewer tokens to complete the same task, you’re looking at roughly 30-50x cheaper for equivalent work.
For a startup running agent workloads at scale, this is the difference between a manageable infrastructure cost and a line item that needs executive approval.
Compare this with other models in our Kimi K2.6 vs Claude Opus 4.6 comparison to see where the market is heading on price-performance.
Long-horizon agent capabilities
V2.5 Pro was built for long-running agent tasks. Xiaomi’s benchmarks show it handling sessions with 1,000+ tool calls while maintaining coherence and task focus. The model doesn’t degrade or lose track of its objective the way many models do after hundreds of sequential actions.
Opus 4.6 is also excellent at agent tasks. It powers Claude Code and has strong tool-calling capabilities. But there’s a practical constraint: Anthropic recently removed Claude Code from the Pro plan, pushing the entry point to the $100/month Max plan. And even on Max, there are usage caps that limit how many long-running agent sessions you can run per day.
With V2.5 Pro via API, your only limit is your budget. At ~$0.08 per agent session, you can run hundreds of sessions daily for what one Opus subscription costs.
Claude Code removed from Pro plan
This comparison exists in a specific context. Anthropic’s decision to remove Claude Code access from the $20/month Pro plan means developers who relied on Opus-powered coding assistance now face a 5x price jump to $100/month for the Max plan.
That pricing change makes alternatives like V2.5 Pro more attractive. You can use V2.5 Pro through OpenRouter or directly via Xiaomi’s API with tools like Aider, Continue, or any OpenAI-compatible client. The API approach gives you more flexibility and, at V2.5 Pro’s pricing, costs less than even the old Pro plan for most usage patterns.
For the full breakdown on the Claude Code situation, see Claude Code removed from Pro plan.
When to use which
Choose MiMo V2.5 Pro when:
- Cost is a primary concern
- You’re running high-volume agent workloads
- You need long-horizon tasks with 100+ tool calls
- You want to self-host eventually (open-source weights coming)
- You’re building automated pipelines where token efficiency directly impacts throughput
Choose Claude Opus 4.6 when:
- You need vision/multimodal capabilities (V2.5 Pro doesn’t support images)
- You’re already invested in the Claude Code ecosystem
- You need the absolute highest raw accuracy and are willing to pay for it
- You need 128K output tokens (V2.5 Pro caps at 32K)
- Your team relies on Anthropic’s safety features and content policies
For many developers, the practical answer is: use V2.5 Pro as your default and fall back to Opus for tasks that specifically need vision or very long outputs. That hybrid approach captures most of the cost savings while keeping Opus available when you genuinely need it.
For more on how Opus 4.6 compares to its predecessor, see our dedicated breakdown.
FAQ
Is MiMo V2.5 Pro actually better than Claude Opus 4.6? On SWE-bench Pro, yes. On ClawEval, Opus scores slightly higher but uses nearly twice the tokens. “Better” depends on whether you optimize for raw score or score-per-dollar. For most production use cases, V2.5 Pro delivers comparable quality at a fraction of the cost.
Can I use MiMo V2.5 Pro with Claude Code or Cursor? Not directly with Claude Code (that’s Anthropic-only). But you can use V2.5 Pro with Aider, Continue, OpenCode, and any tool that supports OpenAI-compatible APIs via OpenRouter. Cursor supports custom model endpoints as well.
When will MiMo V2.5 Pro weights be available for self-hosting? Xiaomi has announced the weights will be open-sourced but hasn’t given a specific date. Given the V2 Pro weights were released relatively quickly after launch, expect V2.5 Pro weights within weeks of the API launch. Check our MiMo V2.5 Pro complete guide for updates.