Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 5 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.5 leads 62.3 to 42.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 31% for Grok 4.5 and 63% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 48.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-08 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1553 | 1637 |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 51.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1474 | 1504 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 65.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 15.4% | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1482 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 70% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 96.5% | — |
| LMCA | 45.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.92 | — |
Math Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 31% | 63% |
| LMArena Math | 1459 | 1468 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1501 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | — |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | 1259 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1434 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1496 | 1511 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1475 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1409 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1450 | 1456 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1404 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1463 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1463 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1400 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1451 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.5 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.5 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; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 52.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.