Model comparison
GPT-4.1 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4.1 #113 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #96 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4.1 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to GPT-4.1; 6 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- GPT-4.1 only
- 7
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 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 13 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 53.4 versus 50.58. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.4 against 54.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 54.6% to 73.4%.
GPT-4.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 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 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 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 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GPT-4.154.6 | Margin→ 18.8 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4.166.3 | Margin→ 18.4 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Math | GPT-4.14.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4.187.4 | 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 54.6%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 18.8SWE-bench Verified: GPT-4.1 scored 54.6%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 66.3%B 83.7%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 17.4GPQA: GPT-4.1 scored 66.3%; 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 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4.1$2 input / $8 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4.1108 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4.11.02 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | GPT-4.1 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4.11M | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | GPT-4.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4.1 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 90.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 66.3% | 83.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 19.4% | 24.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 66.6% | 65.6% | GPT-4.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.6% | 8.0% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.2% | -48.5% | GPT-4.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 15.2% | GPT-4.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 79.6% | 75.1% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-4.1 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.4 to 50.58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 54.6% and 73.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 66.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-4.1 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 54.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.