Model comparison
Grok 4.20 vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and MiMo-V2.5 share 6 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 5 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- Grok 4.20 only
- 12
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.20 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 2M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 54.68. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 60.9% to 81%. Grok 4.20 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 1M for MiMo-V2.5.
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 | Grok 4.20 | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Grok 4.2047.1 | Margin→ 18.7 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Coding | Grok 4.2067.1 | Margin← 11.0 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.2070.1 | Margin→ 8.9 | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
| Reasoning | Grok 4.2053.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 60.9%B 81%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 20.1CharXiv: Grok 4.20 scored 60.9%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 47.1%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 18.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 51.8%B 56.1%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 4.3SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 75.2%B 77.9%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2.7MMMU-Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 75.2%; 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 | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.2010.33 s | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.202M | MiMo-V2.51M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins6 benchmarks
CodingGrok 4.20 wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 53.3% | — | Not comparable |
Knowledge4 benchmarks
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 75.2% | 77.9% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| CharXivSource | 60.9% | 81% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| ERQASource | 54.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 65.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1257 | 1291 | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 60.9% and 81%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2.5?
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 56.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2.5?
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.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 70.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.