$ diff mimo-v2-6-pro grok-4-7
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Grok 4.7
Values come from MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Grok 4.7, 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
- 500K
- weights
- —
- $/M in
- $2
- $/M out
- $6
What actually differs
- Context window
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro takes 1M against 500K — 2× more room in a single request.
- Input price
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.435/M against $2/M — 4.6× 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
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.87/M against $6/M — 6.9× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Recency
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro shipped 1 day after Grok 4.7 (2026-09-22 vs 2026-09-21).
Full spec
| Attribute | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Grok 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Xiaomi | xAI |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-21 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 500K |
| Pricing | no vendor list price — weights are MIT and self-hostable; routed providers reported at $0.435/M input · $0.87/M output | $2/M input · $0.50/M cached input · $6/M output (prompts ≤200K); $4/M · $1/M · $12/M above 200K |
| License | MIT (open weights) | not recorded |
| Availability | Hugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routers | Grok API, Cursor, Grok Build, OpenRouter, Vercel, Cloudflare |