Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
xAI logo
Model A
Grok Code Fast 1

xAI

34.21/100

Supported · Public rank #220

90% interval 29.339.1

Grok Code Fast 1 vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Updated September 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Xiaomi logo
Model B
MiMo-V2-Omni

Xiaomi

57.78/100

Supported · Public rank #76

90% interval 44.171.5

Decision reading

MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score, 57.78 versus 34.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    MiMo-V2-Omni

    MiMo-V2-Omni has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok Code Fast 1 and MiMo-V2-Omni are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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: rate-fallback

  • 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.

Shared results
1
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
MiMo-V2-Omni only
1
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Knowledge

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
37.2
Estimated · #146/183
MiMo-V2-Omni
49.5
Estimated · #84/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
48.4
#85/123
MiMo-V2-Omni
64.1
#70/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
30.0
Estimated · #140/152
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
57.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiMo-V2-Omni
72.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
MiMo-V2-Omni
63.0
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

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 Code Fast 1
$0.00095
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.0145
Fits in one request
MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.059
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiMo-V2-Omni 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Grok Code Fast 1

256K

MiMo-V2-Omni

262K

API model ID

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Grok Code Fast 1

Not published

MiMo-V2-Omni

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok Code Fast 1

Non-Reasoning

MiMo-V2-Omni

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

License

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Release date

Grok Code Fast 1

2025-08-28

MiMo-V2-Omni

2026-03-18

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
MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score, 57.78 versus 34.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
MiMo-V2-Omni has the larger documented window (262K).

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 evidence2 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    Grok Code Fast 1
    MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Grok Code Fast 170.8%
    Source
    MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%
    Source

    MiMo-V2-Omni leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score, 57.78 versus 34.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

Grok Code Fast 1 and MiMo-V2-Omni are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Grok Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

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 Code Fast 1 or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 15, 2026

Watch Grok Code Fast 1 vs MiMo-V2-Omni

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.