Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol leads on the public coding lane, 71.6 to 37.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2.5
Updated September 24, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 7
- GPT-5.6 Sol only
- 30
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Supported: GPT-5.6 SolHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
71.6GPT-5.6 Sol37.6MiMo-V2.5
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
GPT-5.6 Sol leads the like-for-like coding row.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
30 GPT-5.6 Sol only
7 Shared
8 MiMo-V2.5 only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 8.5GPT-5.6 Sol:64.6%MiMo-V2.5:56.1%MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 6.2GPT-5.6 Sol:89.1%MiMo-V2.5:82.9%MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 5.1GPT-5.6 Sol:83%MiMo-V2.5:77.9%LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 1.1GPT-5.6 Sol:82.6%MiMo-V2.5:81.5%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 71.6
- Supported · #6/135
- MiMo-V2.5
- 37.6
- Supported · #64/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 12 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Agentic
Directional only- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 69.6
- Supported · #7/105
- MiMo-V2.5
- 29.5
- Estimated · #68/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 87.6
- #5/50
- MiMo-V2.5
- 59.1
- #31/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 72.1
- #8/19
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 78.8
- Supported · #7/158
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Sol
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 87.7
- #28/124
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-5.6 Sol
- 96.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-5.6 Sol | MiMo-V2.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 71.6Supported · #6/135 | 37.6Supported · #64/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 12 vs 4 public rows | GPT-5.6 Sol leads |
| Agentic | 69.6Supported · #7/105 | 29.5Estimated · #68/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 87.6#5/50 | 59.1#31/50 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 72.1#8/19 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 78.8Supported · #7/158 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 87.7#28/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 96.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- GPT-5.6 Sol
- $0.014
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- GPT-5.6 Sol
- $0.26
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- GPT-5.6 Sol
- $0.36
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiMo-V2.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-5.6 SolMiMo-V2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-5.6 Sol
1.05M
OpenAI model catalogMiMo-V2.5
1M
API model ID
GPT-5.6 Sol
gpt-5.6-sol
OpenAI model catalogMiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
GPT-5.6 Sol
$0.4 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI pricingMiMo-V2.5
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
GPT-5.6 Sol
text, image
OpenAI model catalogMiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-5.6 Sol
MiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-5.6 Sol
Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API
OpenAI model catalogMiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-5.6 Sol
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.5
Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5
Proprietary
License
GPT-5.6 Sol
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5
Proprietary
Release date
GPT-5.6 Sol
2026-07-09
MiMo-V2.5
2026-04-22
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented window (1.05M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5?
GPT-5.6 Sol leads the public coding lane, 71.6 to 37.6, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 69.6 to 29.5. MiMo-V2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2.5?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
GPT-5.6 Sol34.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Sol91.9%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
GPT-5.6 Sol92.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
GPT-5.6 Sol62.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
GPT-5.6 Sol84.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GPT-5.6 Sol33.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
GPT-5.6 Sol58%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol85.8%SourceMiMo-V2.560.7%SourceGPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
ApprenticeBench
GPT-5.6 Sol26%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
GPT-5.6 Sol—MiMo-V2.562.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MM-ClawBench
GPT-5.6 Sol—MiMo-V2.523.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Sol—MiMo-V2.565.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
GPT-5.6 Sol—MiMo-V2.546.89%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
GPT-5.6 Sol—MiMo-V2.516.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Bug Hunt Bench
GPT-5.6 Sol42 fixesSourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.6 Sol64.6%SourceMiMo-V2.556.1%SourceGPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
GPT-5.6 Sol91.9%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
GPT-5.6 Sol60.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
GPT-5.6 Sol32.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
GPT-5.6 Sol67.2%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
GPT-5.6 Sol87.0%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
GPT-5.6 Sol86.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol82.6%SourceMiMo-V2.581.5%SourceGPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol96.2%SourceMiMo-V2.571.0%SourceGPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
cursorBench40
GPT-5.6 Sol41.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.6 Sol—MiMo-V2.565.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Knowledge
GPQA
GPT-5.6 Sol94.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
GPT-5.6 Sol94.6%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
GPT-5.6 Sol54.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
GPT-5.6 Sol82.1%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
GPT-5.6 Sol60.5%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
GPT-5.6 Sol33.1%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol95.2%SourceMiMo-V2.581.6%SourceGPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%SourceMiMo-V2.582.9%SourceGPT-5.6 Sol leads this result
Math
45 public results · 7 shared
Watch GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 24, 2026