GLM-5.3 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash RL
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 1 of 5 areas
Coding
GLM-5.3 is the stronger all-rounder.MiMo V2.6 Flash RL is cheaper and better at coding.
Scores updated · 22 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20GLM-5.32 of 2 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20GLM-5.32 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20GLM-5.32 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GLM-5.31 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software12MiMo V2.6 Flash RL2 of 3 tests
Long documents rests on a single test.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
MiMo V2.6 Flash RL costs 93% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where GLM-5.3 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+24.8points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+19.2points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+7.7points ahead
Where MiMo V2.6 Flash RL pulls ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+3.7points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 22 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingMiMo V2.6 Flash RL
- SciCodeGLM-5.3 by 7.75951.3+7.7
- Terminal-Bench 2.1MiMo V2.6 Flash RL by 3.783.987.6+3.7
- LMArena · WebDevMiMo V2.6 Flash RL by 16 rating points16221638+16 rating
AgentsGLM-5.3
- Terminal-Bench 4.0GLM-5.3 by 19.241.922.7+19.2
- GDPValGLM-5.3 by 2.157.555.4+2.1
ReasoningGLM-5.3
- Humanity's Last ExamGLM-5.3 by 7.242.335.1+7.2
- CritPtGLM-5.3 by 7.119.112+7.1
FactsGLM-5.3
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGLM-5.3 by 24.870.445.6+24.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGLM-5.3 by 6.933.927+6.9
Other results12 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceGLM-5.3 by 2714.3-12.7+27
- Terminal-Bench 4.0GLM-5.3 by 1341.828.8+13
- CyberGymMiMo V2.6 Flash RL by 10.684.595.1+10.6
- Program BenchMiMo V2.6 Flash RL by 71926+7
- AA IntelligenceGLM-5.3 by 6.944.837.9+6.9
- Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1GLM-5.3 by 5.29.54.3+5.2
- HLE-DiamondGLM-5.3 by 4.217.913.7+4.2
- CritPt v2 HardGLM-5.3 by 433.529.5+4
- GDP (Surge AI)GLM-5.3 by 2.211.29+2.2
- DeepSWE 1.1MiMo V2.6 Flash RL by 166.967.9+1
- Agents' Last Examtie28.527.6tie
- Toolathlon Verifiedtie7373.6tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, GLM-5.3 or MiMo V2.6 Flash RL?
GLM-5.3 wins four of the five areas where both have results: agents, reasoning, facts and long documents. MiMo V2.6 Flash RL wins coding, and costs 93% less.
Which is better for coding?
MiMo V2.6 Flash RL. It wins 2 of the 3 coding tests both models report; GLM-5.3 wins 1.
Which is cheaper?
GLM-5.3 costs $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; MiMo V2.6 Flash RL costs $0.14 and $0.28. That makes MiMo V2.6 Flash RL about 93% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 22 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 12 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.