Model comparison
GPT-5.4 nano vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 nano and MiMo-V2.5 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 27 results are unique to GPT-5.4 nano; 9 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 27
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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-5.4 nano is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.79 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
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-5.4 nano | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 | Margin→ 22.9 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 | Margin→ 12.9 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Coding | GPT-5.4 nanoNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 46.3%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 19.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 66.1%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 11.8MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.4 nano scored 66.1%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 nano | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.4 nano400K | MiMo-V2.51M | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 46.3% | 65.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 39% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 35.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 76% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 27.5% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 24.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 30.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1100 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.89% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 38.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 26.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -29.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 75.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 nano or MiMo-V2.5?
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 46.3% and 65.8%.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 42.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 66.1. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.