Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Pro #17 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and MiMo-V2-Pro share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 1 to MiMo-V2-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- GLM-5.1 only
- 22
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5.1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2-Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.78 versus 67.74. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 61.3.
MiMo-V2-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | GLM-5.1 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | Margin→ 16.7 | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | MiMo-V2-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 57.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | 95% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | 36.68% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | 15.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 31.46% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 55.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | 42.5% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | 40.3% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | 87.0% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | 28.3% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | 4.9% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 26.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | 29.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Math6 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1305 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.3% | 68.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.78 to 67.74.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 61.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.