Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.6 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6 scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 40.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 38.4% for GLM-4.6 and 51.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.6.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

GLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index41.448.5
Released2025-09-302026-09-21
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K1.05M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.28
Results tracked2919

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena WebDev13401637
SciCode38.4%51.3%
LMArena Coding14491504
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)55.4%—
ALE-Bench340.82—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Terminal-Bench24.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard72.4%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
CritPt1.1%12%
LMArena Hard Prompts14401482
Kagi LLM Benchmark47.4%—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Math14321468
ProofBench—63%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)3.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert14311501
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Vision—1259

Multilingual Too close to call

GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English14261434
LMArena Chinese14991511
LMArena French14591475
LMArena Russian14191409
LMArena Spanish14361456
LMArena German1447—
LMArena Japanese1393—
LMArena Korean1400—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14101463

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14221463

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)

BenchmarkGLM-4.6MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text14401455
LMArena Creative Writing14111400
LMArena Multi-Turn14271451
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 41.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6 has 29 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper