Grok 4.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
Compare Grok 4.5 and MiMo V2.6 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.
Compare Grok 4.5 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
Grok 4.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals
Grok 4.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where MiMo V2.6 Pro leads 42.0% to 19.0%.
Overall, Grok 4.5 averages 65.8% (#40 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0084 per sample) and faster (8.5s vs 20.8s per sample).
Grok 4.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.5 | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 500K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.02T total, 42B active | |
| License | Proprietary | MIT |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.435 |
| Output $/1M | $6.00 | $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 | 65.8% | 62.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0084 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 20.75s | 8.47s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 19.0% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 18.0 to 19.6 | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 17.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 17.5 to 18.0 | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 59.5% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 62.2 | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | 57.7% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 60.8 | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 92.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.5 | 90.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9 |
| OCR (high) | 92.3% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.9 to 92.9 | 87.5% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 83.5% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 84.5 | 81.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 81.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 83.5 | 80.4% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 57.6% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 58.9 | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 59.8% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 62.3 | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
Grok 4.5 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: Overview
Grok 4.5 is a proprietary reasoning model from SpaceXAI (xAI) that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window. xAI positions it as a model for coding, agentic software work, and knowledge tasks, and states it was trained in the company's Memphis data centers on datasets spanning science, engineering, and mathematics. Its reinforcement learning stage covers hundreds of thousands of multi step software engineering tasks scored by automated checks and model based grading, and training is reported to have run on tens of thousands of NVIDIA GB300 GPUs using an asynchronous scheme in which multi hour agentic rollouts continue while learning proceeds in parallel, targeting long horizon autonomous operation rather than single turn inference.
For vision, the model consumes JPEG and PNG images in any order relative to text prompts, covering visual question answering, description of chart and document imagery, and reading text rendered inside a scene. Reasoning effort is configurable, and the model supports function calling and structured outputs, so image inputs can be interleaved with tool calls inside agent loops. xAI has not published a technical report, architecture details, or parameter count, and reported mixture of experts sizing figures come from secondary coverage rather than official documentation.
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, Grok 4.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 65.8% (#40 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.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, MiMo V2.6 Pro leads with 42.0% against 19.0%. 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 $0.0084. Grok 4.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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 8.5s per inference against 20.8s. 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 open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.