Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-5.1 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 22 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to GLM-5.1; 9 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- GLM-5.1 only
- 14
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GLM-5.1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 70.19 versus 67.74. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2.5-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 65.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.5% to 68.4%. GLM-5.1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5-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-V2.5-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GLM-5.152.3 | Margin← 4.3 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Coding | GLM-5.161.3 | Margin← 4.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Agentic | GLM-5.165.4 | Margin→ 3.0 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Math | GLM-5.162.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.5%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 4.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: GLM-5.1 scored 63.5%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 52.3%B 48%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 4.3HLE: GLM-5.1 scored 52.3%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 48%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 58.4%B 57.2%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 1.2SWE-bench Pro: GLM-5.1 scored 58.4%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-5.1Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-5.1Not available | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-5.1203K | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.5% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 68% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.6% | 72.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 68.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 63.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 29.9% | 29.1% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 97.7% | 94.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 37.8% | 38.3% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 60.11% | 62.70% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1257 | 1265 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 873 | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingGLM-5.1 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.4% | 57.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 62.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 31.46% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 55.8% | 60.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 43.8% | 50.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-5.1 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.3% | 48% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.2% | 42.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.8% | 86.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.0% | 33.8% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 1.9% | 3.6% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 22.6% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.4% | 24.5% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 34% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1305 | 1298 | GLM-5.1 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.3% | 79.9% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 67.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.5% and 68.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.3 versus 48. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
GLM-5.1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61.3 versus 57.2. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GLM-5.1 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 65.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.