Model comparison
GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 3.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 43.1 to 20.9.
- GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 50.3 |
| Released | 2026-01-19 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.06 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1383 | 1534 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1629 |
| SciCode | — | 60.9% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,158 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 59.5% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1356 | 1512 |
| CritPt | — | 26.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1355 | 1494 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 58.3% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 70% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1357 | 1543 |
| GPQA Diamond | 60.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.7-Flash: —, MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1264 |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1330 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1403 | 1529 |
| LMArena Russian | 1332 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1332 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1350 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1327 | 1493 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1345 | 1501 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1492 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1468 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1342 | 1464 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7-Flash better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. GLM-4.7-Flash costs 3.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
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-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.
Is GLM-4.7-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19.