text model comparison
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are both current text models, from Anthropic and Xiaomi MiMo. Claude Haiku 5.5 is 29% cheaper per 1M input tokens than MiMo-V2.6-Flash, $0.10 vs $0.14. Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Data verified October 13, 2026 · Dataset 2026-10-13
Side by side
Standard-tier prices in effect today. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Claude Haiku 5.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Price per 1M input tokens | $0.10 (better) | $0.14 |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $0.50 | $0.28 (better) |
| Cost of 10M input and 2M output tokens | $2 | $1.96 (better) |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.6% (#29 of 40) | Not measured |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) | 75.1% (#16 of 40) | Not measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 23.8% (#33 of 36) | Not measured |
| Arena Text | Not measured | 1451 Elo (#35 of 49) |
| Provider | Anthropic | Xiaomi MiMo |
| Release date | October 7, 2026 | September 22, 2026 |
| Access | API only | API and open weights |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Input | text, image | text, image, audio, video |
| Output | text | text |
When to choose each
Claude Haiku 5.5
Best for
- High-volume classification, extraction and routing under the 100,000-token line
- Cost-sensitive fan-out steps where a frontier model is overkill
Watch out for
- Priced by prompt length, and it is a cliff rather than a taper: a request whose prompt passes 100,000 tokens is billed at $0.50 input and $2.50 output for the whole request, five times the short rate
- Cache reads and cache writes both count toward that 100,000-token measurement, so a large cached prefix can tip a request into the higher band on its own
- It is the only current Claude model whose 1M window is not priced uniformly; every other 4.6-and-later model bills a 900k request at the same rate as a 9k one
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Best for
- High-frequency multimodal calls
- Low-cost agent workloads
Watch out for
- Xiaomi's own table puts it well behind the Pro model on exploitation tasks (ExploitBench 25.3 against 47.9)
- The API checkpoint (RL or MOPD weights) is not identified
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is 29% cheaper per 1M input tokens than MiMo-V2.6-Flash, $0.10 vs $0.14. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Claude Haiku 5.5 costs $2 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash $1.96 at standard rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Can I run Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash myself?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is released as open weights you can run yourself; Claude Haiku 5.5 is available through its provider's API only.
Related comparisons
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-4.1 nano
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- GPT-4.1 nano vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Production evaluation
Choosing between Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty