Model comparison
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 2.9× 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 . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher in 6 categories and MiMo-V2-Pro in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 85.4% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro.
- MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
- MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 48.6 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 30K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.43 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.87 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1375 | 1433 |
| LMArena Coding | 1459 | 1476 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,150 | 785.17 |
| WeirdML | 52.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 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-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.4% | 25.8% |
| Thematic Generalization | 63.8% | 45.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1451 | 1457 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 65.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 75% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 89.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| 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-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1455 | 1447 |
| 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-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 30.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), MiMo-V2-Pro: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 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-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1441 | 1416 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1481 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1476 | 1469 |
| LMArena German | 1465 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1449 | 1366 |
| LMArena Korean | 1417 | 1400 |
| LMArena Russian | 1458 | 1427 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1443 | 1457 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Pro leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1445 |
Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 22.2% | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | 11.9% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1437 | 1455 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1438 | 1415 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1574 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than MiMo-V2-Pro?
Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 2.9× 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-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 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-Pro better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 42.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and MiMo-V2-Pro share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.