Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 38.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 6% for GLM-4.7 and 63% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index42.048.5
Released2025-12-222026-09-21
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K1.05M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.28
Results tracked3619

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena WebDev14351637
SciCode45.1%51.3%
LMArena Coding14541504
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
CritPt1.7%12%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431482
SimpleBench47.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProofBench6%63%
LMArena Math14231468
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert14241501
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

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

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

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English14171434
LMArena Chinese14951511
LMArena French14321475
LMArena Russian14231409
LMArena Spanish14341456
LMArena German1424—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1399—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14111463

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14321463
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text14351455
LMArena Creative Writing14011400
LMArena Multi-Turn14461451
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 44.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

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

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper