Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 36.1.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index38.848.5
Released2026-01-192026-09-21
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window200K1.05M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$0.28
Results tracked2119

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Coding13831504
LMArena WebDev—1637
SciCode—51.3%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13561482
CritPt—12%
Chess Puzzles0%—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Math13551468
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202558.3%—
ProofBench—63%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert13571501
GPQA Diamond60.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7-Flash: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Vision—1259

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English13301434
LMArena Chinese14031511
LMArena French13321475
LMArena Russian13321409
LMArena Spanish13501456
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Korean1283—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13271463

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query13451463

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text13511455
LMArena Creative Writing12971400
LMArena Multi-Turn13421451
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1125—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

Is GLM-4.7-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper