Skip to main content
BenchLM

GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

78.49/100

Supported · Public rank #7

90% interval 75.6–81.4

Model B
Xiaomi logo

Xiaomi

49.22/100

Estimated · Public rank #78

90% interval 34.5–64.0

Shared results
0
GPT-5.6 Sol only
37
MiMo-V2-Omni only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: GPT-5.6 Sol · Estimated: MiMo-V2-OmniHow 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
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Chat 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-rates
  • Cache-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-rates
  • Repository 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 Sol—MiMo-V2-Omni

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

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.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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.

Knowledge

Directional only
GPT-5.6 Sol
78.8
Supported · #7/158
MiMo-V2-Omni
41.7
Estimated · #83/158
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
GPT-5.6 Sol
87.7
#28/124
MiMo-V2-Omni
62.6
#72/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol
69.6
Supported · #7/105
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol
71.6
Supported · #6/135
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 12 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol
72.1
#8/19
MiMo-V2-Omni
73.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol
87.6
#5/50
MiMo-V2-Omni
63.1
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
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-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
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-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiMo-V2-Omni 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5.6 Sol

MiMo-V2-Omni

262K

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 pricing

MiMo-V2-Omni

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

GPT-5.6 Sol

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.6 Sol

Reasoning

MiMo-V2-Omni

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.6 Sol

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.6 Sol

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.6 Sol

2026-07-09

MiMo-V2-Omni

2026-03-18

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
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-Omni?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Sol or MiMo-V2-Omni?

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-Omni?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 262K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence39 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    GPT-5.6 Sol34.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GPT-5.6 Sol91.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    GPT-5.6 Sol92.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Sol62.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GPT-5.6 Sol84.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GPT-5.6 Sol33.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.6 Sol58%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Sol85.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    GPT-5.6 Sol26%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GPT-5.6 Sol—
    MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    GPT-5.6 Sol42 fixes
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-5.6 Sol64.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GPT-5.6 Sol91.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    GPT-5.6 Sol60.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    GPT-5.6 Sol32.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    GPT-5.6 Sol67.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    GPT-5.6 Sol87.0%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench CII v1

    GPT-5.6 Sol86.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Sol82.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Sol96.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench40

    GPT-5.6 Sol41.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    GPT-5.6 Sol—
    MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-5.6 Sol92.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GPT-5.6 Sol7.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • GeneBench-Pro

    GPT-5.6 Sol28.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.6 Sol83%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GPT-5.6 Sol84.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.6 Sol94.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.6 Sol94.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE-Verified

    GPT-5.6 Sol54.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    GPT-5.6 Sol82.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    GPT-5.6 Sol60.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    GPT-5.6 Sol33.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Sol95.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.6 Sol89%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GPT-5.6 Sol89.000%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GPT-5.6 Sol83.000%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni—

    Not directly comparable

39 public results · 0 shared

Watch GPT-5.6 Sol vs MiMo-V2-Omni

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 24, 2026