Model comparison
GLM-4.6V vs MiMo-V2-Omni
MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 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-Omni in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Omni leads 61.4 to 56.6.
- MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for GLM-4.6V.
- MiMo-V2-Omni accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
- GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 43.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-08 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), MiMo-V2-Omni: 43.3 (#89)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1390 | 1466 |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), MiMo-V2-Omni: 29.7 (#88)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1368 | 1445 |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.6V: —, MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.1 (#115)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1430 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), MiMo-V2-Omni: 40.5 (#118)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1449 |
Multimodal MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), MiMo-V2-Omni: 38.6 (#63)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | 1228 |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), MiMo-V2-Omni: 51.8 (#102)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1425 | 1465 |
| LMArena Russian | 1340 | 1412 |
| LMArena French | — | 1447 |
| LMArena German | — | 1399 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1355 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1434 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.2 (#66)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1428 |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#76)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1442 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Omni leads
GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.4 (#87)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6V | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1423 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1360 | 1445 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.6V better than MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.3 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Omni does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and MiMo-V2-Omni share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Omni has 18.