GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Flash
Compare GLM 5V Turbo and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals
GLM 5V Turbo scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GLM 5V Turbo leads 56.5% to 37.8%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#41 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0031 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (6.3s vs 9.2s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | MiMo V2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $0.280 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 65.3% | 60.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0003 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.35s | 9.20s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.5% | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 |
| Counting (low) | 48.6% | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 |
| Counting (high) | – | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | – | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 89.3% | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 |
| OCR (high) | – | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 81.4% | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 |
GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview
GLM-5V-Turbo is a native multimodal model from Z.ai that extends the GLM family with joint image, video, and text input aimed at vision-centered coding and agent workflows. The model reads screenshots, design drafts, document layouts, and interface captures and generates runnable code from them, covering tasks such as turning a visual design into a working front end, diagnosing rendering and layout defects from screen captures, and operating graphical user interfaces during long-horizon agent runs. It accepts roughly 200,000 input tokens and can emit up to 131,072 output tokens in a single response, which supports sessions that hold specifications, source files, logs, and visual references at the same time.
Training includes a joint reinforcement learning stage spanning more than 30 tasks simultaneously, an approach Z.ai describes as a way to counter the trade-off in which improving visual recognition degrades programming ability and the reverse. Reported evaluations cover pure-text coding on the backend, frontend, and repository exploration tracks of CC-Bench-V2, together with agent execution suites such as PinchBench, ClawEval, and ZClawBench, indicating that text coding behavior is retained after visual input is added.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GLM 5V Turbo performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 65.3% (#41 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, GLM 5V Turbo leads with 56.5% against 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0031. GLM 5V Turbo is priced at $1.20 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GLM 5V Turbo is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 9.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.