GLM 5.3 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Overall
35
vs
Overall
48

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is clearly better. It wins 44 of the 66 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-Pro spends 2.1× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
3555.5s
2.8K, 89% thinking5.9K, 89% thinking
482m 13s
Agents
1037.0s
607, 81% thinking8.7K, 84% thinking
474m 48s
Structured Extraction
4847.2s
2.7K, 93% thinking3.4K, 87% thinking
601m 26s
Coding
541m 52s
5.3K, 83% thinking10.7K, 95% thinking
242m 58s
Grounded Answers
3756.8s
2.9K, 93% thinking3.2K, 89% thinking
621m 9s
Instruction Following
4340.8s
2K, 77% thinking4.5K, 86% thinking
591m 23s
Business Logic
331m 18s
5.8K, 98% thinking7.1K, 92% thinking
571m 52s
Security & permissions
5525.2s
963, 81% thinking3.6K, 86% thinking
711m 41s
Diagnosis & investigation
027.0s
563, 63% thinking6.2K, 86% thinking
02m 54s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
60 tok/s (better)
55 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
$0.19 (better)
$1.80
Cost per case
$0.0013 (better)
$0.012
Time per case
55.5s (better)
2m 13s
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-Pro
025507510050100150Perfect run3548

Every test case

153 test cases

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

22 won by GLM 5.3 Flash44 won by MiMo-V2.6-Pro87 tied