GPT-6.1 Sol vs Mimo v2 Pro
Full profiles: GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI) and Mimo v2 Pro (Xiaomi): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, GPT-6.1 Sol is ahead of Mimo v2 Pro on quality (67.2 vs 59.2 on the BenchLeader Index), but Mimo v2 Pro is 1.3× cheaper at $3.00 vs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose GPT-6.1 Sol for coding (72 vs 52), maths (73 vs 63), and reasoning (73 vs 64); choose Mimo v2 Pro for agents & tools (69 vs 64).
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores 67.2 on the BenchLeader Index and Mimo v2 Pro scores 59.2 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- GPT-6.1 Sol costs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Mimo v2 Pro costs $3.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Of the 13 benchmarks both models have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 13 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- On Arena WebDev, GPT-6.1 Sol is rated 1752 and Mimo v2 Pro 1434 (LMArena, as published by 29 Oct 2026).
GPT-6.1 Sol benchmarks 
Mimo v2 Pro benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GPT-6.1 Sol | 72 vs 52 category score; Arena WebDev 1752 vs 1434 | High |
| Agents & tool use | Mimo v2 Pro | 69 vs 64 category score | Medium |
| Maths | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 63 category score; Arena Maths 1513 vs 1450 | High |
| Reasoning | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 64 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1504 vs 1475 | High |
| Long documents | GPT-6.1 Sol | 66 vs 59 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.0% vs 68.3% | High |
| Chat quality (human preference) | GPT-6.1 Sol | 67 vs 63 on Arena votes | Medium |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 67.2 vs 59.2.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in coding, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Mimo v2 Pro is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following.
At a glance
| Spec | GPT-6.1 Sol | Mimo v2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Xiaomi |
| Released | 29 Sept 2026 | 18 Mar 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,050,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Mimo v2 Pro |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $2.00 / $10.00 / $0.100 | – |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Mimo v2 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 73.2 | 63.9 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Coding | 71.6 | 52.3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Agents & tools | 64.4 | 69.4 | Mimo v2 Pro |
| Maths | 72.8 | 62.8 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Knowledge | 73.0 | – | not comparable |
| Instruction following | – | 67.8 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 67.1 | 63.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Multimodal | 65.9 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 66.4 | 58.8 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Where sources disagree
Across the 13 benchmarks both have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 13, Mimo v2 Pro leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Sol ahead.
| Overall index | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Mimo v2 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 67.2 | 59.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Arena Text | 1480 | 1448 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Mimo v2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $4.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $2.00 / $10.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.100 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0038 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.030 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.027 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.160 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0060 | – |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $1.27 | – |
| Output speed | 79 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 249.5 s | – |
| Time to a complete answer | 255.8 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) scores 67.2 and takes 249 s to its first answer token; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) scores 64.3 in 97 s, GPT-6.1 Sol (high) scores 64.0 in 28 s. Mimo v2 Pro scores 59.2. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
120 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Mimo v2 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 67.2 | 59.2 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 64.4 | 69.4 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 71.6 | 52.3 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | 63.2 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 73.0 | – |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 58.8 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.8 | 62.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 65.9 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 73.2 | 63.9 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 67.8 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $4.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 79 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 249.5 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,050,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 95.4% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1504 | 1475 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 92.6%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 92.6% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 87.0% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.9% | 30.4% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 58.8% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 96.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 94.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 96.2% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 31.7% | 0.3% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 68.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 46.4% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 68.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 80.0% | – |
| CL-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 15.7% |
| CL-bench Life | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 6.9% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 62.8% | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 96.5% | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 54.2% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 50.2%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1537 | 1503 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1752 | 1434 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 96.0%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 80.4% | – |
Show all 120 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Mimo v2 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| IOI | Vals AI | 96.9% | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 65.1% | – |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.3% | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 3.0% | – |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 43.5% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 88.9% | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2743.8 | 785.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.1% | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 78.6%† | – |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.1% | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 40.6% | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 58.2% | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 60.0% | – |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 13.6 | – |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 68.7%† | – |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 93.3%† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 54.5% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 40.9% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 95.0% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 62.3%† | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | 54.8% | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1608 | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.0% | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 39.3% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 52.0% | – |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 61.8% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 6.3% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 5.4% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 38.5% | – |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 28.3% | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 50.8% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 21.8% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 55.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 52.9% | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1250 | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 64.9% | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 31.0% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | 6.9% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1555 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 58.1% | – |
| FACTS Search | 88.2%† | – | |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 93.7% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 99.0%† | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 96.8% | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1513 | 1450 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.9% | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 82.7%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 83.5%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 82.7% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 42.0 | – |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 46.2%† | – |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 47.9%† | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 79.6% | – |
| ClaimBench | Vals AI | 100.0% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 70.8% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 71.1% | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 48.8% | – |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 86.5% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 59.3% | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 54.3% | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 35.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 61.8% | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 48.1% | – |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | 65.1% | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 90.1% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 74.2% | – |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 68.8% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | 82.0%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1485 | 1445 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1480 | 1448 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1272† | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1453 | 1423 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1483 | 1466 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1489 | 1467 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1288 | – |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 82.1%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 86.0% | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 90.5% | – |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | 1369 | – |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1119 | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.0% | 68.3% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 38.3% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 168.4† | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.1%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 81.6% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 54.5 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 51.8 | 28.6 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 348.5 | 279 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 63.9 | – |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 55.8% | – |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 26.6% | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 59.6% | – |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | 63.9%† | – |
Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Mimo v2 Pro: BenchLeader Index 59.7 → 59.1.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $0.72/M to $1.27/M (76% up).
- Mimo v2 Pro: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 10 new results (ClaimBench, Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1…).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): BenchLeader Index 67.9 → 67.4.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 5 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 new results (LMCA, DTBench).
- Mimo v2 Pro: BenchLeader Index 60.2 → 59.7.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 score revisions.
Related comparisons
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Fable 5.1
- Mimo v2 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Mimo v2 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
- Mimo v2 Pro vs Claude Fable 5.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Mimo v2 Pro: questions
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Mimo v2 Pro?
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 67.2 vs 59.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is ahead overall as of 29 Oct 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Mimo v2 Pro: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Mimo v2 Pro is cheaper today: $3.00 against $4.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Mimo v2 Pro better for coding?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in coding (72 vs 52 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1752 for GPT-6.1 Sol against 1434 for Mimo v2 Pro.
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Mimo v2 Pro better for agents and tool use?
- Mimo v2 Pro scores higher in agentic tasks (69 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is better for long documents?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 59). Both take about 1.1M tokens: GPT-6.1 Sol 1,050,000, Mimo v2 Pro 1,000,000.
More questions (2)
- Do independent benchmarks agree on GPT-6.1 Sol vs Mimo v2 Pro?
- Across the 13 benchmarks both have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 13, Mimo v2 Pro leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Sol ahead.
- When was GPT-6.1 Sol released?
- GPT-6.1 Sol was released on 29 Sept 2026.