Model comparison
Grok 4.20 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok 4.20 #93 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Flash #96 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.20 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Grok 4.20; 18 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 28, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Grok 4.20 only
- 18
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Grok 4.20 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Grok 4.20 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 53.88 versus 53.16. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Grok 4.20 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for MiMo-V2-Flash. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Grok 4.20 gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.
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-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok 4.2067.1 | Margin→ 6.3 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Agentic | Grok 4.2047.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Grok 4.2053.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.20Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Multimodal | Grok 4.2070.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 76.7%B 73.4%Winner: Grok 4.20Δ 3.3SWE-bench Verified: Grok 4.20 scored 76.7%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. Grok 4.20 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-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.20$2 input / $6 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.20233 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Grok 4.20 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.2010.33 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | MiMo-V2-Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.202M | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Grok 4.20 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 47.1% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 62.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.36% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 12.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 838 | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 88.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 31.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 50.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 8.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -48.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.20 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
Grok 4.20 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.88 to 53.16. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 76.7% and 73.4%.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.20 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 67.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.