Model comparison
Inkling vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; MiMo-V2-Pro unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; MiMo-V2-Pro supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and MiMo-V2-Pro share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Inkling; 15 to MiMo-V2-Pro.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Inkling only
- 15
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Inkling 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 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
MiMo-V2-Pro has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 72 versus 69. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 68.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 77.6% to 78%.
MiMo-V2-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 | Inkling | Δ | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin→ 9.4 | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.6%B 78%Winner: MiMo-V2-ProΔ 0.4SWE-bench Verified: Inkling scored 77.6%; MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%. MiMo-V2-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 36.68% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 40.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 28.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 4.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 26.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 97.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 77.6% and 78%.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.