Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2.5-Pro in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-4.7 leads 47.0 to 42.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 6% for GLM-4.7 and 22% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 45.2 |
| Released | 2025-12-22 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 36 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | 1479 |
| SciCode | 45.1% | 50.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1503 |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | 899.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.7% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1488 |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 34.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| DTBench | — | 84.5% |
| LMCA | — | 29.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.51 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 6% | 22% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1481 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | 1503 |
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | 1449 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1488 |
| LMArena German | 1424 | 1458 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | 1412 |
| LMArena Korean | 1399 | 1437 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1450 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1434 | 1471 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | 1477 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | 1483 |
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1465 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1440 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | 1493 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1477 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1208 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.
Is GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 44.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27.