Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.1 leads 55.0 to 39.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.8% for GLM-5.1 and 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.1.
- MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 47.6 | 40.8 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2025-12-16 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 41 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 48.5 (#52), MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1509 | 1330 |
| SciCode | 43.8% | 25.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1486 | 1443 |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 737.95 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.8 (#106), MiMo-V2-Flash: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 38.2 (#57), MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.1 (#155)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4.6% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | 1420 |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.86 | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 49.0 (#48), MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1472 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#45), MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.1 (#126)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1477 | 1425 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 55.2 (#34), MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.1 (#109)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1391 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1516 | 1463 |
| LMArena French | 1478 | 1429 |
| LMArena German | 1466 | 1395 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1436 | 1324 |
| LMArena Korean | 1423 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1467 | 1420 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 76.5 (#41), MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | 1392 |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#51), MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#106)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1467 | 1409 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 67.2 (#29), MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.9 (#101)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1375 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1473 | 1404 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than MiMo-V2-Flash?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.1 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-5.1 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.5 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and MiMo-V2-Flash share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.