Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GLM-4.7
68
MiMo-V2.5
72
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+20.5 difference
Coding
+14.5 difference
GLM-4.7
MiMo-V2.5
$0 / $0
$null / $null
82 t/s
N/A
1.10s
N/A
200K
1M
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-4.7 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 68. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 45.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 41% to 65.8%. GLM-4.7 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 41% and 65.8%.
GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 56.1. MiMo-V2.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 45.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.