Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.7

Rank #117 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

46.7

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 53.2 to 43.6.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index41.746.7
Released2025-12-222026-09-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K1.05M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.43
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.87
Results tracked3614

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena WebDev14351618
LMArena Coding14541538
SciCode45.1%—
ALE-Bench399.48—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: —

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

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Hard Prompts14431511
SimpleBench47.7%—
CritPt1.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.53—

Math Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Math14231497
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-Pro: 43.0 (#85)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Expert14241548
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-4.7: —, MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Vision—1265

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Non-English14171474
LMArena Chinese14951532
LMArena Russian14231481
LMArena French1432—
LMArena German1426—
LMArena Japanese1439—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Spanish1433—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Instruction Following14111490

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Longer Query14321500
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Text14361491
LMArena Creative Writing14011465
LMArena Multi-Turn14461463
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 43.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper