Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-4.7 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

GLM-4.7 and MiMo-V2-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 41.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 6 categories and MiMo-V2-Flash in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.7 leads 44.0 to 36.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 45.1% for GLM-4.7 and 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

GLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Xiaomi
Noometry Index42.041.3
Released2025-12-222025-12-16
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window205K262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$2.20$0.28
Results tracked3621

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena WebDev14351330
SciCode45.1%25.9%
LMArena Coding14541443
ALE-Bench399.48737.95

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), MiMo-V2-Flash: —

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

Reasoning Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
CritPt1.7%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14431420
SimpleBench47.7%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.51—

Math Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Math14231396
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 (#80), MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Expert14241425
GPQA Diamond83.3%—
SimpleQA Verified32.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.7%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Non-English14171392
LMArena Chinese14951462
LMArena French14321429
LMArena German14241395
LMArena Japanese14391325
LMArena Korean13991358
LMArena Russian14231387
LMArena Spanish14341420

Instruction Following Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14111392

Long Context Too close to call

GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14321409
CL-bench15.9%—
CL-bench Life10.9%—

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)

BenchmarkGLM-4.7MiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Text14351411
LMArena Creative Writing14011375
LMArena Multi-Turn14461404
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1413—

Frequently asked questions

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

GLM-4.7 and MiMo-V2-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.0 vs 41.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-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-Flash better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 205K.

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

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper