$ diff claude-opus-5-5 mimo-v2-6-pro
Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Values come from Claude Opus 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
- context
- 1M
- weights
- closed
- $/M in
- $4
- $/M out
- $20
- context
- 1M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.435
- $/M out
- $0.87
What actually differs
- Context window
- Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
- Input price
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.435/M against $4/M — 9.2× cheaper to feed.
- Output price
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.87/M against $20/M — 23.0× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Weights
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro publishes weights (MIT (open weights)); Claude Opus 5.5 is API-only. That decides self-hosting, air-gapped deployment and fine-tuning before any capability question does.
Full spec
| Attribute | Claude Opus 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Xiaomi |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-22 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens |
| Pricing | $4/M input · $20/M output · cache reads $0.20/M · cache writes $5/M | no vendor list price — weights are MIT and self-hostable; routed providers reported at $0.435/M input · $0.87/M output |
| License | proprietary (API-only; no weight release) | MIT (open weights) |
| Availability | Claude apps, Claude Code, Claude API as `claude-opus-5-5`, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry | Hugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routers |