Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multimodal, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 39.8 to 34.8.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 43.4 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1469 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1438 |
| SciCode | — | 43.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 513.95 |
Reasoning Too close to call
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1450 |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1436 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1460 |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | 1247 |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1468 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1395 |
| LMArena French | — | 1447 |
| LMArena German | — | 1421 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1416 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1434 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1445 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1445 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V 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-4.6V lists at $0.30 and $0.90.
Is GLM-4.6V or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and MiMo-V2.5 share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.