Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 5.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 5 categories and MiMo-V2.5-Pro in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.7 leads 49.1 to 26.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 76.8% for Grok 4.7 and 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 500K.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 53.1 | 45.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 500K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1639 | 1479 |
| SciCode | 57.8% | 50.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1503 |
| FrontierCode | 47.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 899.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 22.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,537 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | 34.4% |
| CritPt | 18% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | 1488 |
| DTBench | 96% | 84.5% |
| LMCA | 49.4% | 29.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.53 | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 34% | 22% |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1481 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 53% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.1% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1422 | 1503 |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 56% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1228 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 32.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1389 | 1449 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1455 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1488 |
| LMArena Russian | 1397 | 1450 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1400 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | — | 1458 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1412 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1437 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | 1477 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | 1483 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1399 | 1465 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1440 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | 1493 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1393 | 1477 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1208 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 5.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Grok 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.
Is Grok 4.7 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 47.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 500K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27.