Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2-Omni
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.4 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Omni costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher in 9 categories and MiMo-V2-Omni in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.5 to 36.4.
- MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 64.4 | 42.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 64 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 61.1 (#7), MiMo-V2-Omni: 42.7 (#87)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1493 | 1467 |
| DeepSWE | 72.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1619 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | — |
| SciCode | 57.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 89.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 20% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,177 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.2 (#7), MiMo-V2-Omni: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 51.4% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 46.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | — |
| BALROG | 60% | — |
| GBAEval | 52.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.7% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1257 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,619 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.7 (#6), MiMo-V2-Omni: 28.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1445 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 71.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 93.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 32.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 64% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 37.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 44.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 59.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 161.99 | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.5 (#7), MiMo-V2-Omni: 36.4 (#112)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1432 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 82.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 83% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#16), MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.9 (#114)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1517 | 1449 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.4% | — |
Multimodal GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.9 (#8), MiMo-V2-Omni: 37.9 (#62)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | 1228 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 56.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.4 (#32), MiMo-V2-Omni: 52.0 (#97)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1523 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | 1448 |
| LMArena German | 1476 | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1475 | 1318 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1355 |
| LMArena Russian | 1466 | 1412 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1449 | 1432 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.8 (#16), MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.4 (#62)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1480 | 1428 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.3 (#42), MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1442 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.5 (#12), MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1456 | 1424 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1450 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1972 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1250 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than MiMo-V2-Omni?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.4 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Omni costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.
Is GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2-Omni better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 61.1 versus 42.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Sol and MiMo-V2-Omni share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Sol has 64 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Omni has 18.