Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs MiMo-V2-Omni
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Omni costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 6 categories and MiMo-V2-Omni in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.2 to 28.6.
- MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 42.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 30K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 41.8 (#104), MiMo-V2-Omni: 42.7 (#87)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1458 | 1467 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1374 | — |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.3 (#43), MiMo-V2-Omni: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.2 (#30), MiMo-V2-Omni: 28.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1445 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.01 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.0 (#54), MiMo-V2-Omni: 36.4 (#112)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1432 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#54), MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.9 (#114)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1440 | 1449 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2-Omni leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.2 (#88), MiMo-V2-Omni: 37.9 (#62)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1228 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.7 (#38), MiMo-V2-Omni: 52.0 (#97)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1469 |
| LMArena French | 1477 | 1448 |
| LMArena German | 1463 | 1398 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1450 | 1318 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1355 |
| LMArena Russian | 1457 | 1412 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 75.0 (#79), MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.4 (#62)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1428 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.4 (#33), MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#72)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | 1442 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.9 (#42), MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1424 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than MiMo-V2-Omni?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Omni costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 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; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or MiMo-V2-Omni better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (41.8 vs 42.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and MiMo-V2-Omni share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Omni has 18.