Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-4.7 #42 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.7 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to GLM-4.7; 0 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- GLM-4.7 only
- 11
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-4.7 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 61.16 to 54.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-4.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.4 against 73.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 85.7% to 83.7%. MiMo-V2-Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.
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-4.7 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GLM-4.751.8 | Margin→ 32.9 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Coding | GLM-4.775.4 | Margin← 2.0 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Agentic | GLM-4.745.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Math | GLM-4.71.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 85.7%B 83.7%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 2GPQA: GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 84.3%B 84.9%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 0.6MMLU-Pro: GLM-4.7 scored 84.3%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.8%B 73.4%Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 0.4SWE-bench Verified: GLM-4.7 scored 73.8%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.782 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.71.10 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | GLM-4.7 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.7200K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | MiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 41% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 52% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 15.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 25.4% | 12.0% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.9% | 83.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.95% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 33.3% | 16.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1165 | 833 | GLM-4.7 leads |
CodingGLM-4.7 wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 85.7% | 83.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.3% | 84.9% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| HLESource | 24.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 24.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.9% | 65.6% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 25.1% | 8.0% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -34.6% | -48.5% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 29.3% | 15.2% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 90.3% | 75.1% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 67.9% | 39.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.16 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 85.7% and 83.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-4.7 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
GLM-4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.4 versus 73.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.