Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 8 categories and MiMo-V2-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 24.9.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2025-12-16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 30K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | 1330 |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1443 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | 737.95 |
| SciCode | — | 25.9% |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), MiMo-V2-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 57.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1189 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,663 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1420 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LMCA | 38.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 151.98 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | — |
Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1396 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 17.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 92.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 14% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1425 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), MiMo-V2-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1416 | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1429 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1395 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1420 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1392 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1409 |
| CL-bench | 22.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1375 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1404 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than MiMo-V2-Flash?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 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; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and MiMo-V2-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.