GLM 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5
Updated October 21, 2026. 65 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 44.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 34.0 for MiMo-V2.5.
Pick MiMo-V2.5 when output tokens cost 18.5x less, or when a solved task costs $0.01 against $0.60.
- Shared results
- 65
- GLM 5.1 only
- 24
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, four public coding benchmarks
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 scores 44.0 against 34.0.
One benchmark behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 26.1 against 21.8.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 23.9 against 15.8.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 84.5% against 81.6%.
Same board, both measured
Math
AIME
No call
Only GLM 5.1 has a AIME result, 91.9%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 86.9% against 82.9%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GLM 5.1
GLM 5.1 leads, 1290 against 1266.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 takes 1.05M tokens against 205K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.5
GLM 5.1 $0.0036, MiMo-V2.5 $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
MiMo-V2.5
GLM 5.1 $0.60, MiMo-V2.5 $0.01.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- GLM 5.1 44.0 from 1 benchmark, MiMo-V2.5 34.0 from 1 benchmark.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 10.5 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena Text: Japanese: GLM 5.1 1435 against MiMo-V2.5 1306, 21.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GLM 5.1 $4.40 against MiMo-V2.5 $0.238 per million output tokens, 18.5x apart.
- Context window
- GLM 5.1 takes 205K tokens, MiMo-V2.5 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GLM 5.1 | Bars | MiMo-V2.5 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 10 | 4 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 4 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 6 | 0 | ||
| Math | 3 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 8 | 1 | ||
| Web design | 8 | 0 | ||
| General | 20 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 60 | 5 |
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index104
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | 1438 | GLM 5.1 |
| AA Coding Index | 55.8 | 56.8 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 81.4% | 81.5% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 76.4% | 71.0% | GLM 5.1 |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 31.5% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 25.8% | 14.2% | GLM 5.1 |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 56.9% | 60.7% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| SciCode | 44.8% | 43.9% | GLM 5.1 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 43.2% | 41.7% | GLM 5.1 |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 514.0 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1485 | 1469 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1484 | 1463 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1505 | 1425 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1508 | 1429 | GLM 5.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 26.1 | 21.8 | GLM 5.1 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.8 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 23.9 | 15.8 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1175 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1167 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1162 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1186 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1053 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | 1164 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1170 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1189 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | 1315 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 44.8% | 36.7% | GLM 5.1 |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 7.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 27.9% | 9.1% | GLM 5.1 |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.1% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 97.7% | 90.6% | GLM 5.1 |
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $5,634 | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 84.5% | 81.6% | GLM 5.1 |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 80.0% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 86.8% | 84.9% | GLM 5.1 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 30.1% | 27.2% | GLM 5.1 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 89.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| Chess puzzles | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1473 | 1450 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1478 | 1459 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1482 | 1461 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1269 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1262 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 91.9% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 93.3% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 36.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | 16.0% | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: math | 1473 | 1436 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1470 | 1451 | GLM 5.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index81
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 86.9% | 82.9% | GLM 5.1 |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.4% | 78.9% | GLM 5.1 |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 51.5% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 64.5% | 59.9% | GLM 5.1 |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 71.2% | 71.8% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.3% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 41.6% | 31.9% | GLM 5.1 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34.0% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1478 | 1440 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1474 | 1432 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1465 | 1425 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1452 | 1432 | GLM 5.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1290 | 1266 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1292 | 1257 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1265 | 1249 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1366 | 1249 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1336 | 1216 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1268 | 1260 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1217 | 1178 | GLM 5.1 |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1142 | 1141 | GLM 5.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index200
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 61.8% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 43.3% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 72.3% | 72.2% | GLM 5.1 |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Not measured | 52.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| IFBench | 76.3% | 67.1% | GLM 5.1 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 73.7% | 73.0% | GLM 5.1 |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | Not measured | Only GLM 5.1 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1463 | 1428 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1453 | 1435 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1453 | 1393 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1247 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1476 | 1447 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1448 | 1405 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1515 | 1469 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1467 | 1421 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1435 | 1306 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1424 | 1361 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1470 | 1448 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1468 | 1414 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1454 | 1396 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1449 | 1413 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1473 | 1445 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1467 | 1445 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1454 | 1409 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1442 | 1399 | GLM 5.1 |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1259 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1326 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1256 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1226 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | Not measured | 1189 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1230 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GLM 5.1 | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.5 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
MiMo-V2.5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
MiMo-V2.5 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Z.ai GLM 5.1 | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Z.ai | Xiaomi |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 7, 2026 | April 22, 2026 |
| Context window | 205K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.40 | $0.119 |
| Output $/Mtok | $4.40 | $0.238 |
| Coding index | 44.0 | 34.0 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.60 | $0.01 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GLM 5.1 better than MiMo-V2.5 for coding?
Pick GLM 5.1 for coding: it scores 44.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 34.0 for MiMo-V2.5. Pick MiMo-V2.5 when output tokens cost 18.5x less, or when a solved task costs $0.01 against $0.60.
Which is cheaper, GLM 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5?
GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.119 and $0.238. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GLM 5.1 costs $0.60 and MiMo-V2.5 $0.01.
Which has the bigger context window, GLM 5.1 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5, with 1.05M tokens against 205K.
How many benchmarks is the GLM 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5 comparison based on?
65 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 5.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and MiMo-V2.5's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.