Agentic
Like-for-like- Grok 4.5
- 83.3
- MiMo-V2.5
- 65.8
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Grok 4.5 leads
Grok 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.5
Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Grok 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 75.19 versus 59.18, 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
Grok 4.5
Grok 4.5 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Grok 4.5
Grok 4.5 leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
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.
7 Grok 4.5 only
3 Shared
7 MiMo-V2.5 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Grok 4.5 only
- 7
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
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- Grok 4.5
- 64.7
- MiMo-V2.5
- 56.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Grok 4.5 leads
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok 4.5
- 52.6
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Grok 4.5
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok 4.5
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok 4.5
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Grok 4.5
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5
- 79.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Grok 4.5
- Not measured
- MiMo-V2.5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok 4.5 | MiMo-V2.5 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 83.3 | 65.8 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Coding | 64.7 | 56.1 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Grok 4.5 leads |
| Reasoning | 52.6 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 79.0 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | 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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
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
- Grok 4.5
- $0.005
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok 4.5
- $0.118
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Grok 4.5
- $0.16
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.5
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
MiMo-V2.5 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.
SpecificationGrok 4.5MiMo-V2.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok 4.5
500K
MiMo-V2.5
1M
API model ID
Grok 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Grok 4.5
$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens
MiMo-V2.5
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Grok 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok 4.5
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok 4.5
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.5
Reasoning
Weight access
Grok 4.5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5
Proprietary
License
Grok 4.5
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.5
Proprietary
Release date
Grok 4.5
2026-07-08
MiMo-V2.5
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
- Grok 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 75.19 versus 59.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- MiMo-V2.5 has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence17 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Grok 4.515.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok 4.583.3%SourceMiMo-V2.565.8%SourceGrok 4.5 leads this result
deepSwe
Grok 4.553%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Grok 4.5—MiMo-V2.562.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MM-ClawBench
Grok 4.5—MiMo-V2.523.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Grok 4.5—MiMo-V2.546.89%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Grok 4.5—MiMo-V2.516.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Grok 4.564.7%SourceMiMo-V2.556.1%SourceGrok 4.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Grok 4.578%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Grok 4.583.3%SourceMiMo-V2.565.8%SourceGrok 4.5 leads this result
cursorBench32
Grok 4.566.7%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Grok 4.591.3%SourceMiMo-V2.5—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Grok 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Grok 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 75.19 versus 59.18, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Grok 4.5 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
Grok 4.5 leads the like-for-like agentic tasks comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which costs less, Grok 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
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, Grok 4.5 or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 500K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 22, 2026
Watch Grok 4.5 vs MiMo-V2.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.