Model comparison
GPT-5.2 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-5.2 #64 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.2 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to GPT-5.2; 6 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- GPT-5.2 only
- 15
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
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
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.43 to 54.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 92.4 against 84.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 92.4% to 83.7%. MiMo-V2-Flash does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 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. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, 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-5.2 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | GPT-5.292.4 | Margin← 7.7 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Coding | GPT-5.270.6 | Margin→ 2.8 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.255.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.252.9 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Math | GPT-5.235.2 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.280.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.2 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.273 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.2130.34 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | MiMo-V2-Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.2400K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | GPT-5.2 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseCompSource | 65.8% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 47.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 83.9% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.54% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 34.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 12.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 16.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 833 | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 92.4% | 83.7% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.2% | 24.7% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.3% | 65.6% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.4% | 8.0% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -1.0% | -48.5% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.8% | 15.2% | GPT-5.2 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 79.7% | 75.1% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.4% | 39.9% | GPT-5.2 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-5.2 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.43 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 92.4% and 83.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.2 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 84.7. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.2 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 70.6. 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.