Model comparison
GPT-4.1 mini vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 mini #152 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 mini and MiMo-V2-Flash share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to GPT-4.1 mini; 2 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- GPT-4.1 mini only
- 5
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 mini only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 5 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
MiMo-V2-Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 54.06 to 44.19. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.4 against 23.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 23.6% to 73.4%.
GPT-4.1 mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for MiMo-V2-Flash. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. MiMo-V2-Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while GPT-4.1 mini is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GPT-4.1 mini gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.
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 | GPT-4.1 mini | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GPT-4.1 mini23.6 | Margin→ 49.8 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.1 mini64.2 | Margin→ 20.5 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Math | GPT-4.1 mini4.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.1 mini88.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 23.6%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 49.8SWE-bench Verified: GPT-4.1 mini scored 23.6%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 64.2%B 83.7%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 19.5GPQA: GPT-4.1 mini scored 64.2%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-4.1 mini | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1 mini$0.4 input / $1.6 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1 mini80 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.1 mini0.76 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | GPT-4.1 mini reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.1 mini1M | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | GPT-4.1 mini lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 mini | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 64.2% | 83.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.8% | 24.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 66.4% | 65.6% | GPT-4.1 mini leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.6% | 8.0% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -50.1% | -48.5% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 17.5% | 15.2% | GPT-4.1 mini leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 82.0% | 75.1% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 mini or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 44.19. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 23.6% and 73.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 mini or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 64.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-4.1 mini or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 23.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.