Model comparison
Grok 4.20 vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #88 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5-Pro #14 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and MiMo-V2.5-Pro share 5 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 26 to MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Grok 4.20 only
- 13
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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 5 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 2 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-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 70.19 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-Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 68.4 against 47.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 47.1% to 68.4%. 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-Pro.
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-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Grok 4.2047.1 | Margin→ 21.3 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro68.4 |
| Coding | Grok 4.2067.1 | Margin← 9.9 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro57.2 |
| Reasoning | Grok 4.2053.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-Pro48.0 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.2070.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 47.1%B 68.4%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 21.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Grok 4.20 scored 47.1%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 68.4%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 51.8%B 57.2%Winner: MiMo-V2.5-ProΔ 5.4SWE-bench Pro: Grok 4.20 scored 51.8%; MiMo-V2.5-Pro scored 57.2%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.2010.33 s | MiMo-V2.5-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.202M | MiMo-V2.5-Pro1M | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5-Pro wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 47.1% | 68.4% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.36% | 62.70% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1265 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.3% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 873 | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
CodingGrok 4.20 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 76.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 51.8% | 57.2% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 4.06% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 60.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 50.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 88.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 31.6% | 34% | MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 50.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 48% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 33.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 3.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 22.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 24.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 79.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 70.19 to 54.68. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 47.1% and 68.4%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?
Grok 4.20 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 57.2. 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-Pro?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.4 versus 47.1. Inside this category, Gert Labs 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.