Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

44.4

Rank #74 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 29.6 to 23.7.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index41.744.4
Released2025-12-222026-09-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K1.05M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.28
Results tracked3613

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Coding14541516
LMArena WebDev1435—
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Terminal-Bench33.4%—
Vending-Bench 22,377—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts14431481
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Math14231477
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.3%—
ProofBench6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)2.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert14241516
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Vision—1266

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English14171439
LMArena Chinese14951501
LMArena Russian14231424
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1426—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1433—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14111463

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14321465
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text14361459
LMArena Creative Writing14011408
LMArena Multi-Turn14461460
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.7 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 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; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (43.6 vs 44.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper