// head_to_head
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs GLM 5
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
GLM 5 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Blended / 1M
- $0.544
- Context
- 1.1M
- Released
- Sep 21, 2026
- Overall score
- 68.5
z-ai
GLM 5
- Blended / 1M
- $1.55
- Context
- 205K
- Released
- Feb 11, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
Specs and pricing
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 68.5 | — |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.0018 | — |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.544win | $1.55 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.435win | $1.00 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.870win | $3.20 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.0036win | $0.200 |
| Context window | 1.1Mwin | 205K |
| Max output tokens | 131K | 131K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — MiMo-V2.6-Pro on top, GLM 5 below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $142.94/mo | $438.40/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $227.64/mo | $672.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $176.02/mo | $608.00/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $478.68/mo | $1,200/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $958.80/mo | $2,420/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Wider context window — 1.1M against 205K.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs GLM 5 FAQ
Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or GLM 5?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. GLM 5 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro cheaper than GLM 5?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.544 per million tokens and GLM 5 at $1.55 — MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 2.9× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — MiMo-V2.6-Pro charges $0.435 in and $0.870 out, GLM 5 charges $1.00 and $3.20 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does MiMo-V2.6-Pro or GLM 5 have a bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window: 1.1M for MiMo-V2.6-Pro against 205K for GLM 5. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and GLM 5 support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.0036 per million for MiMo-V2.6-Pro and $0.200 for GLM 5, against full input rates of $0.435 and $1.00. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.