Model comparison
Grok 4.6 vs MiMo-V2.5
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.4 to 28.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 51% for Grok 4.6 and 16% for MiMo-V2.5.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.6.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
- MiMo-V2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 56.9 | 43.4 |
| Released | 2026-08-12 | 2026-04-22 |
| 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 | 49 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1617 | 1438 |
| SciCode | 56.5% | 43.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | 1469 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,508 | 513.95 |
| DeepSWE | 67.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 48% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.4% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 25.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 67.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), MiMo-V2.5: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17.2% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,047 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 19.7% | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1447 | 1450 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 67.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 75.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 40% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 30.5% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | — |
| DTBench | 97.3% | — |
| LMCA | 48.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.44 | — |
Math Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 51% | 16% |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | 1436 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 99.2% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | 1460 |
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.3% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | 1247 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 40% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.6 leads
Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1420 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1480 | 1468 |
| LMArena French | 1461 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1431 | 1421 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1376 | 1306 |
| LMArena Korean | 1397 | 1363 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1395 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1404 | 1416 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1431 | 1434 |
Long Context Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1454 | 1445 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.6 | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1428 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | 1445 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.6 better than MiMo-V2.5?
Grok 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.9 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Grok 4.6 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.6 or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?
Grok 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.5 versus 43.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and MiMo-V2.5 share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.