GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
Compare GLM 5V Turbo and MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro on Vision Evals
GLM 5V Turbo scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where GLM 5V Turbo leads 56.5% to 42.0%.
Overall, GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#41 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0031 per sample), while GLM 5V Turbo is faster (6.3s vs 8.5s per sample).
GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | GLM 5V Turbo | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Z.ai | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.02T total, 42B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.20 | $0.435 |
| Output $/1M | $4.00 | $0.870 |
| 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% | 62.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0031 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 6.35s | 8.47s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 56.5% | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 48.6% | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | – | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | – | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 89.3% | 90.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9 |
| OCR (high) | – | 87.5% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 81.4% | 81.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 80.4% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 49.7% | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
GLM 5V Turbo vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: 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 Pro is the flagship omni-modal foundation model in Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 series, released as open weights alongside a Flash variant and a 9B distillation of Qwen3.5. It uses a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with 1.02 trillion total parameters and roughly 42 billion activated per token, paired with a hybrid attention design that interleaves sliding-window and global attention layers to support a context window of about one million tokens. Dedicated encoders handle non-text inputs, including a vision encoder of roughly 681 million parameters and an audio tokenizer stack, so the model accepts text, images, video, and audio and returns text.
Post-training centers on large-scale reinforcement learning across thousands of interactive environments, combined with agentic grading, self-correction cold start, and a multi-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation stage that extends behavior to tasks that are hard to verify automatically. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GLM 5V Turbo performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but GLM 5V Turbo averages 65.3% (#41 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro. 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 42.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 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 Pro is priced at $0.43 per 1M input tokens and $0.87 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 8.5s. 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.