Skip to main content
Radar

Provider changes are easy to miss. Radar watches releases, pricing, deprecations, and incidents at the source.Provider changes are easy to miss.

See Radar

Model comparison

GPT-5.6 Terra vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Updated August 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

GPT-5.6 Terra

OpenAI

72.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #12

90% interval 62.6–82.0

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Xiaomi

69.2/100

Supported · Public rank #17

90% interval 61.6–76.8

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score estimate, 72.29 versus 69.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    GPT-5.6 Terra

    GPT-5.6 Terra leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    GPT-5.6 Terra

    GPT-5.6 Terra 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

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
GPT-5.6 Terra only
19
MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
5
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Like-for-like
GPT-5.6 Terra
63.4
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
57.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
GPT-5.6 Terra leads

Agentic

Directional only
GPT-5.6 Terra
87.4
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
68.4
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
83.9
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
92.9
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
48.0
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
80.8
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
80.7
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Terra
Not measured
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

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 Terra
$0.008
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.6 Terra
$0.136
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.6 Terra
$0.2
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has no comparable published API token rate.

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 Terra

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

1M

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5.6 Terra

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

GPT-5.6 Terra

Generally Available · OpenAI Responses API

OpenAI model catalog

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.6 Terra

Reasoning

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.6 Terra

Proprietary

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.6 Terra

2026-07-09

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

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
GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score estimate, 72.29 versus 69.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence27 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%
    Source

    GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.5%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    GPT-5.6 Terra81.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    GPT-5.6 Terra23.2%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    GPT-5.6 Terra53.1%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    GPT-5.6 Terra
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro63.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    GPT-5.6 Terra
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro72.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-5.6 Terra
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro62.70%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-5.6 Terra63.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2%
    Source

    GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    GPT-5.6 Terra87.4%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4%
    Source

    GPT-5.6 Terra leads this result

  • deepSwe

    GPT-5.6 Terra69.6%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Extended

    GPT-5.6 Terra55.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    GPT-5.6 Terra64.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    GPT-5.6 Terra83.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    GPT-5.6 Terra0.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-5.6 Terra92.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    GPT-5.6 Terra57.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    GPT-5.6 Terra32.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GPT-5.6 Terra
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro48%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GPT-5.6 Terra
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro34%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    GPT-5.6 Terra84.9%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    GPT-5.6 Terra84.900%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GPT-5.6 Terra68.300%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    GPT-5.6 Terra82%
    Source
    MiMo-V2.5-Pro

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, GPT-5.6 Terra or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the higher public score estimate, 72.29 versus 69.2, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.6 Terra or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

GPT-5.6 Terra leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.6 Terra or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, GPT-5.6 Terra or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

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 Terra or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

GPT-5.6 Terra has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated August 10, 2026

Watch GPT-5.6 Terra vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.