GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiMo-V2-Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 35.9. GLM-5.3-Flash is 6.3x cheaper per token.
Zhipu AI · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
GLM-5.3-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 35.9, ranking #12 overall.
On price, GLM-5.3-Flash is roughly 6.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
GLM-5.3-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose GLM-5.3-Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 51.1 and ranks #12 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- cost matters — it's about 6.3x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose MiMo-V2-Pro
- you want predictable pricing at $1.00/M input and $3.00/M output
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
15 reported for GLM-5.3-Flash · 7 for MiMo-V2-Pro
GLM-5.3-Flash and MiMo-V2-Prodon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.15/1M tokens) is 6.7x cheaper than MiMo-V2-Pro ($1.00/1M tokens).
For output processing, GLM-5.3-Flash ($0.50/1M tokens) is 6.0x cheaper than MiMo-V2-Pro ($3.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiMo-V2-Pro is more expensive than GLM-5.3-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2-Pro has 680.0B more parameters than GLM-5.3-Flash, making it 212.5% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
GLM-5.3-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Pro's 1,000,000 tokens. GLM-5.3-Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Pro is limited to 16,384 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
GLM-5.3-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Pro does not.
GLM-5.3-Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
GLM-5.3-Flash
MiMo-V2-Pro
License
Usage and distribution terms
GLM-5.3-Flash is licensed under MIT, while MiMo-V2-Pro uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
GLM-5.3-Flash was released on 2026-08-26, while MiMo-V2-Pro was released on 2026-03-18.
GLM-5.3-Flash is 5 months newer than MiMo-V2-Pro.
Aug 26, 2026
4 days ago
5mo newerMar 18, 2026
5 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
GLM-5.3-Flash is available from DeepInfra, Novita, ZAI. MiMo-V2-Pro is available from Xiaomi.
GLM-5.3-Flash
MiMo-V2-Pro
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against GLM-5.3-Flash and MiMo-V2-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiMo-V2-Pro.