Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.20
72
MiMo-V2.5
72
Treat this as a split decision. Grok 4.20 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window; MiMo-V2.5 is the better fit if agentic is the priority.
Agentic
+18.7 difference
Coding
+4.9 difference
Multimodal
+8.1 difference
Grok 4.20
MiMo-V2.5
$2 / $6
$null / $null
233 t/s
N/A
10.33s
N/A
2M
1M
Treat this as a split decision. Grok 4.20 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window; MiMo-V2.5 is the better fit if agentic is the priority.
Grok 4.20 and MiMo-V2.5 finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for MiMo-V2.5.
Grok 4.20 and MiMo-V2.5 are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 61 versus 56.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 70.8. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.