Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported); MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and MiMo-V2-Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 7 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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-Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 54.06 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.4 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 70.8% to 73.4%.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 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. MiMo-V2-Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 Code Fast 1 | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin→ 2.6 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Knowledge | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 70.8%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 2.6SWE-bench Verified: Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Grok Code Fast 1 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | MiMo-V2-Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 24.7% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 65.6% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 8.0% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | -48.5% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 15.2% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 75.1% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| GPQASource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.4% | 39.9% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 54.06 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 73.4%.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 70.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.