GLM 5.3 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Overall
35
vs
Overall
45

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is clearly better. It wins 39 of the 59 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. MiMo-V2.6-Flash spends 1.6× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
3555.5s
2.8K, 89% thinking4.2K, 92% thinking
451m 21s
Agents
1037.0s
607, 81% thinking2.2K, 86% thinking
381m 19s
Structured Extraction
4847.2s
2.7K, 93% thinking2.6K, 91% thinking
6238.0s
Coding
541m 52s
5.3K, 83% thinking9.9K, 97% thinking
242m 40s
Grounded Answers
3756.8s
2.9K, 93% thinking2.6K, 89% thinking
6242.1s
Instruction Following
4340.8s
2K, 77% thinking4.8K, 90% thinking
641m 2s
Business Logic
331m 18s
5.8K, 98% thinking4.4K, 96% thinking
4356.4s
Security & permissions
5525.2s
963, 81% thinking3.8K, 88% thinking
662m 6s
Diagnosis & investigation
027.0s
563, 63% thinking1.5K, 83% thinking
01m 33s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
60 tok/s
66 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
$0.19 (better)
$0.33
Cost per case
$0.0013 (better)
$0.0021
Time per case
55.5s (better)
1m 21s
Quantization
FP8
BF16
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

GLM 5.3 FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run3545

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

20 won by GLM 5.3 Flash39 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash94 tied