Model Comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
vs. MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, Xiaomi
Recommended Pick
An Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding
Best Value
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
47.9 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning)
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
64.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
34.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) is 37.5x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning).
Speed gap
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) generates about 2.0x as many tokens per second as Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) leads MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) by 16.6 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) leads MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) by 8.3 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning)
Xiaomi
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Xi MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Release Date | May 22, 2025 | Dec 16, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 59.4 tok/s | 119.5 tok/s |
| TTFT | 9944ms | 1368ms |
| Latency | 9944ms | 1368ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 3.1 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 64.4 | 47.9 |
| Intelligence | 38.7 | 30.3 |
| Coding | 34.1 | 25.8 |
| Math | 74.3 | 67.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 77.7% | 65.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 84.2% | 74.4% |
| HLE | 9.6% | 8.0% |
| LiveCodeBench | 65.5% | 40.2% |
| MATH 500 | 99.1% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 74.3% | 67.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 77.3% | — |
| SciCode | 40.0% | 25.9% |
| LCR | 64.7% | 31.3% |
| IFBench | 54.7% | 39.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 64.6% | 83.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.1% | 25.8% |
Key Takeaways
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 64.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning) reaches a 34.1 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 4 Sonnet (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
MiMo-V2-Flash (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
