Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 55.5 to 42.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 14% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 70% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 50.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 30K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | 1629 |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1534 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | 1,158 |
| SciCode | — | 60.9% |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 59.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1512 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 26.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 14% | 70% |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1494 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1543 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1264 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1529 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | — |
| LMArena German | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1493 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1501 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1492 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1468 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1464 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 48.6 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19.