Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 28.6 to 23.7.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 43.4 |
| Released | 2025-09-30 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1340 | 1438 |
| SciCode | 38.4% | 43.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1449 | 1469 |
| ALE-Bench | 340.82 | 513.95 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 55.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), MiMo-V2.5: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 24.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 72.4% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1440 | 1450 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 47.4% | — |
Math GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | 1436 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1431 | 1460 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.6: —, MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1247 |
Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads
GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1426 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1499 | 1468 |
| LMArena French | 1459 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1421 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1393 | 1306 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1363 |
| LMArena Russian | 1419 | 1395 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1436 | 1416 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1410 | 1434 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1445 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1440 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1445 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6 better than MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; GLM-4.6 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.
Is GLM-4.6 or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and MiMo-V2.5 share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.