$ diff mimo-v2-6-pro glm-5-3-flash
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs GLM-5.3-Flash
Values come from MiMo-V2.6-Pro and GLM-5.3-Flash, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Pro
- context
- 1M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.435
- $/M out
- $0.87
- context
- 1.0M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.15
- $/M out
- $0.5
What actually differs
- Context window
- GLM-5.3-Flash takes 1.0M against 1M — modestly more room in a single request.
- Input price
- GLM-5.3-Flash at $0.15/M against $0.435/M — 2.9× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- GLM-5.3-Flash at $0.5/M against $0.87/M — 1.7× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Weights
- Both publish weights — MiMo-V2.6-Pro under MIT (open weights), GLM-5.3-Flash under MIT. Check the licences rather than assuming they permit the same commercial use.
- Recency
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro shipped 27 days after GLM-5.3-Flash (2026-09-22 vs 2026-08-26).
Full spec
| Attribute | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Xiaomi | Z.ai |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-08-26 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1,048,576 (1M) |
| Pricing | no vendor list price — weights are MIT and self-hostable; routed providers reported at $0.435/M input · $0.87/M output | $0.15/M input · $0.03/M cached input · $0.50/M output |
| License | MIT (open weights) | MIT |
| Availability | Hugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routers | Hugging Face (open weights), Z.ai API |