Model comparison
GLM-5.3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3 scores higher in 5 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3 leads 58.3 to 43.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 49% for GLM-5.3 and 70% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.3.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 54.8 | 50.3 |
| Released | 2026-08-14 | 2026-09-21 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 42 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1622 | 1629 |
| SciCode | 59% | 60.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1496 | 1534 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,317 | 1,158 |
| DeepSWE | 69% | — |
| FrontierCode | 40.1% | — |
| CursorBench | 42.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 30.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 75.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.6% | 59.5% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,164 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 19.1% | 26.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1489 | 1512 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 33% | — |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| LMCA | 55.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.15 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.61 | — |
Math GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 49% | 70% |
| LMArena Math | 1489 | 1494 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 68.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 91.1% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1543 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-5.3: —, MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1264 |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1457 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1528 | 1529 |
| LMArena Russian | 1463 | 1480 |
| LMArena French | 1499 | — |
| LMArena German | 1499 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1460 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1493 |
Long Context Too close to call
GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1501 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads
GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | GLM-5.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1492 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1457 | 1468 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | 1464 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2075 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.3 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-5.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GLM-5.3 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-5.3 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.
Is GLM-5.3 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 55.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3 has 42 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19.