GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
GPT-5.6 Sol leads MiMo-V2.5-Pro on coding, 73.5 to 31.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 21.9x less per output token ($0.9152 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 70 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5-Pro: which to pick
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 73.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 31.6 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro for output tokens 21.9x cheaper ($0.9152 vs $20.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.03 against $1.20).
- Shared results
- 70
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 69
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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, six public coding benchmarks
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol scores 73.5 against 31.6.
6 and 4 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 47.0 against 26.0.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 50.2 against 21.3.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 95.2% against 82.6%.
Same board, both measured
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 89.1% against 84.6%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads, 1321 against 1266.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1.05M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
GPT-5.6 Sol $0.014, MiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.0009 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
GPT-5.6 Sol $1.20, MiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.03.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5.6 Sol 73.5 from 6 benchmarks, MiMo-V2.5-Pro 31.6 from 4 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 22.2 points apart on average over 15 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- ProofBench: GPT-5.6 Sol 83.0% against MiMo-V2.5-Pro 22.0%, 61.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5.6 Sol $20.00 against MiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.9152 per million output tokens, 21.9x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 1.05M tokens.
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 | GPT-5.6 Sol | Bars | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 13 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 5 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 4 | 2 | ||
| Math | 2 | 1 | ||
| Knowledge | 6 | 3 | ||
| Web design | 8 | 0 | ||
| General | 14 | 8 | ||
| All shared boards | 53 | 17 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index132
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 89.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | 1616 | 1480 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| AA Coding Index | 77.4 | 60.2 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 82.6% | 81.3% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 96.2% | 74.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 37.9% | 0.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 80.5% | 34.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 52.9% | 21.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | 1.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 91.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 85.8% | 57.3% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI) | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 54.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 76.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 57.8% | 50.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 65.9% | 43.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| GSO-Bench | 76.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| WeirdML | 88.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MirrorCode | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | 2176.9 | 899.8 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1496 | 1501 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1489 | 1495 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1620 | 1469 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1618 | 1473 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | 1609 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SciCode | 10.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 47.0 | 26.0 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.8 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 50.2 | 21.3 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | 1245 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps | 1261 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | 1248 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Android apps | 1240 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building Godot games | 1260 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building games | 1266 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: HTML slides | 1236 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: PowerPoint slides | 1215 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | 54.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | 88.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 48.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | 30.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 53.8% | 41.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 31.1% | 11.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 48.1% | 15.9% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 72.3% | 55.2% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 71.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | 41.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Time Horizon Index (Vals AI) | 23.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| CUA-bench (Vals AI) | 8.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 85.1% | 94.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| BALROG | 60.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Vending-Bench 2 | $9,619 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Search | 1261 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index42
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 95.2% | 82.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LiveBench reasoning | 91.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 33.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 88.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 94.1% | 86.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 49.5% | 35.7% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 93.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI | 97.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | 59.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 58.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| EBR-bench | 44.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1483 | 1486 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1517 | 1501 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1477 | 1494 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1305 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1305 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 100.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 89.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 82.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | 83.0% | 22.0% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: math | 1473 | 1481 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1496 | 1491 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index63
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 89.1% | 84.6% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 87.0% | 77.1% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 64.4% | 61.4% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 74.8% | 73.8% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 67.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 44.0% | 32.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1455 | 1482 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1431 | 1473 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1476 | 1474 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1457 | 1466 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | 52.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index80
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1321 | 1266 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1335 | 1246 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1367 | 1261 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1322 | 1257 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1384 | 1243 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1341 | 1265 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1314 | 1181 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1304 | 1156 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LiveBench design | 81.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index148
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench data analysis | 79.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 66.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 52.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 85.2% | 83.7% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 72.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| IFBench | 72.7% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 84.0% | 79.7% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| DTBench | 95.7% | 84.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMCA | 58.5% | 29.5% | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Furniture assembly | 56.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1457 | 1464 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1483 | 1475 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1449 | 1438 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1457 | 1477 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1451 | 1448 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1525 | 1507 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: German | 1476 | 1459 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1472 | 1410 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1442 | 1435 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: French | 1472 | 1487 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1443 | 1469 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1471 | 1449 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1459 | 1464 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1461 | 1476 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1481 | 1481 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1462 | 1451 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1450 | 1438 | GPT-5.6 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1280 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1313 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1290 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1246 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1283 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | Not measured | Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 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-Pro costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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 | OpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Xiaomi |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | July 9, 2026 | April 22, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $4.00 | $0.4575 |
| Output $/Mtok | $20.00 | $0.9152 |
| Coding index | 73.5 | 31.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 6 | 4 |
| Cost per solved task | $1.20 | $0.03 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than MiMo-V2.5-Pro for coding?
Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 73.5 on the Vibe Coding Index against 31.6 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro. Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro for output tokens 21.9x cheaper ($0.9152 vs $20.00 per million) and a lower cost per solved task ($0.03 against $1.20).
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
GPT-5.6 Sol costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs $0.4575 and $0.9152. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5.6 Sol costs $1.20 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro $0.03.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Neither: both take 1.05M tokens.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro comparison based on?
70 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5.6 Sol's coding index rests on 6 independent benchmarks and MiMo-V2.5-Pro's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.