GPT-5.6 Terra vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
GPT-5.6 Terra and MiMo V2.6 Pro score 66.0% vs 50.3% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#28 and #56 of 65 models), so GPT-5.6 Terra leads overall.
- GPT-5.6 Terra wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (60.9% vs 35.1%).
- MiMo V2.6 Pro is about 1/10 of the cost: $0.0011 vs $0.010 overall average cost per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare GPT-5.6 Terra 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
GPT-5.6 Terra vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
GPT-5.6 Terra vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 7, 2026
| Property | GPT-5.6 Terra | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | Unknown | 1.02T total, 42B active |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.435 |
| Output $/1M | $12.00 | $0.870 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.0% | 50.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.010 | $0.0011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.52s | 9.45s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 60.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 60.7 | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 61.3% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 61.6 | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 65.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6 | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | 62.6% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.5 to 64.9 | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 86.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 86.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 56.3% | 48.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 56.9% | 49.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 60.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 63.6 | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 65.3% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.2 to 66.2 | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
GPT-5.6 Terra vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: Overview
GPT-5.6 Terra is the mid-tier reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-5.6 family, which also includes the flagship Sol and the lightweight Luna. Introduced in a limited preview on June 26, 2026, and made broadly available on July 9, 2026, Terra accepts text and image input and produces text output, supporting vision, function calling, tool use, and agentic workflows. It is designed as a balanced option for everyday professional and production workloads — including coding assistance, document analysis, customer support, and multi-step agent tasks — where both output quality and cost efficiency matter. OpenAI positions Terra as delivering performance competitive with GPT-5.5 at approximately half the price, with a context window of around 1,050,000 tokens. Under OpenAI's Preparedness Framework, Terra is rated High for cybersecurity and biological capabilities, meaning it demonstrates meaningful capability in those domains without reaching the Critical threshold.
GPT-5.6 introduces a new naming convention in which the generation number (5.6) is paired with a durable capability tier name (Sol, Terra, or Luna), allowing each tier to advance on its own schedule. Terra carries the API identifier gpt-5.6-terra and supports the same reasoning effort controls available across the family, including adjustable reasoning depth. The model includes prompt caching with explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life, with cache writes billed at 1.25x the uncached input rate and cache reads receiving a 90% discount. GPT-5.6 Terra is a proprietary, closed-weights model served through the OpenAI API, Codex, and ChatGPT.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-5.6 Terra performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 66.0% (#28 of 65) against 50.3% (#56 of 65) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-5.6 Terra leads with 60.9% against 35.1%. 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 $0.0011 per sample against $0.010. GPT-5.6 Terra is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 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.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.5s per inference against 9.5s. 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 classification and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.