Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
Compare Grok 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals
Grok 4.6 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.1% to 35.1%.
Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 68.7% (#30 of 59) against 62.5% (#49 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0097 per sample) and faster (8.5s vs 17.5s per sample).
Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | Grok 4.6 | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | SpaceXAI | Xiaomi |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 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 | 68.7% | 62.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0097 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 17.55s | 8.47s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 23.8% ±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9 | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 24.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1 | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 65.8% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3 | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | 56.8% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1 | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 84.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 91.8% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1 | 90.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9 |
| OCR (high) | 91.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7 | 87.5% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 85.6% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6 | 81.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | 85.6% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6 | 80.4% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5 |
| Reasoning (low) | 61.1% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3 | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 63.8% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2 | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: Overview
Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.
xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.
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 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.7% (#30 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Grok 4.6 leads with 61.1% 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 $0.0008 per sample against $0.0097. Grok 4.6 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 17.5s. 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 open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.