Model comparison

GLM-4.6V vs MiMo-V2-Pro

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.6V scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2-Pro in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 62.8 to 56.6.
  • GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
  • GLM-4.6V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.6V and MiMo-V2-Pro specifications
GLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index41.343.0
Released2025-12-082026-03-18
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1.05M
Max output33K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.43
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$0.87
Results tracked1223

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Coding13901476
LMArena WebDev—1433
ALE-Bench—785.17

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115), MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Hard Prompts13681457
NYT Connections (extended)—25.8%
Thematic Generalization—45.9%

Math Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: —, MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Math—1447

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Pro leads

GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Expert13711478

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90), MiMo-V2-Pro: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Vision1164—

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Pro leads

GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141), MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Non-English13591416
LMArena Chinese14251456
LMArena Russian13401427
LMArena French—1469
LMArena German—1417
LMArena Japanese—1366
LMArena Korean—1400
LMArena Spanish—1457

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Pro leads

GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151), MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Instruction Following13521445

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Longer Query13581455
CL-bench—15.7%
CL-bench Life—6.9%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads

GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137), MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.6VMiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Text13771436
LMArena Creative Writing13471415
LMArena Multi-Turn13601456

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.6V better than MiMo-V2-Pro?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.6V or MiMo-V2-Pro?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

Is GLM-4.6V or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 40.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.6V and MiMo-V2-Pro share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.6V has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper