GPT-6.1 Terra vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Full profiles: GPT-6.1 Terra (OpenAI) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (Xiaomi): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 7 sources
As of 27 Oct 2026, GPT-6.1 Terra (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (65.9 vs 63.7 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±8.2 margin of error), and MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 3.6× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads. Pick GPT-6.1 Terra for knowledge (75 vs 65); pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro for long context (68 vs 66).
GPT-6.1 Terra benchmarks 
MiMo-V2.6-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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | GPT-6.1 Terra | 86 vs 78 category score; CritPt 28.0% vs 26.6% | High |
| Knowledge | GPT-6.1 Terra | 75 vs 65 category score; AA-Omniscience 29.8 vs 8.4 | High |
| Long documents | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 68 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR 86.3% vs 82.7% | Medium |
| Images and other media | GPT-6.1 Terra | 68 vs 60 category score | High |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro has an Arena rating (67 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | $0.548 vs $2.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.030 vs $0.080 | – |
| Fastest first answer | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 38.8 s (MiMo-V2.6-Pro) vs 131.8 s (GPT-6.1 Terra (max)) to the first answer token | – |
| 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 Terra (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (65.9 vs 63.7, within the ±8.2 margin).
- GPT-6.1 Terra (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, multimodal, reasoning.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is stronger in long context, agents & tools, coding, human preference, maths.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 3.6× cheaper ($0.548 vs $2.00 per 1M blended).
- GPT-6.1 Terra (max) streams 1.6× faster (91 vs 56 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | GPT-6.1 Terra | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Xiaomi |
| Released | 26 Oct 2026 | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,050,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $1.00 / $5.00 / $0.050 | $0.440 / $0.870 / $0.0036 |
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 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 86.2 | 78.3 | GPT-6.1 Terra |
| Coding | – | 61.5 | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | – | 58.6 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 66.0 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 74.5 | 64.9 | GPT-6.1 Terra |
| Human preference | – | 67.1 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 67.5 | 59.8 | GPT-6.1 Terra |
| Long context | 66.3 | 68.2 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Composite | 82.8 | 66.9 | GPT-6.1 Terra |
Where sources disagree
Across the 13 benchmarks both have, GPT-6.1 Terra leads 8, MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 5. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Terra ahead.
| Overall index | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.9 | 63.7 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 48.1 | 46.3 | GPT-6.1 Terra |
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 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $2.00 | $0.548 |
| Input / output per 1M | $1.00 / $5.00 | $0.440 / $0.870 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.050 | $0.0036 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0019 | $0.0004 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.015 | $0.0058 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.013 | $0.0039 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.080 | $0.030 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0030 | $0.0011 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $0.403 | $0.133 |
| Output speed | 91 tok/s | 56 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 131.8 s | 38.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 137.3 s | 47.7 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite GPT-6.1 Terra (max) cost $0.403 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro $0.133, because MiMo-V2.6-Pro used about 1.2× as many tokens for the same work.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GPT-6.1 Terra (max) scores 65.9 and takes 132 s to its first answer token; GPT-6.1 Terra (xhigh) scores 65.0 in 18 s, GPT-6.1 Terra (high) scores 64.7 in 7 s. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 63.7 and takes 39 s to its first answer token. 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
75 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 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 65.9 | 63.7 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 82.8 | 66.9 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 74.5 | 64.9 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.3 | 68.2 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 67.5 | 59.8 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 86.2 | 78.3 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 58.6 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | – | 61.5 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 67.1 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 66.0 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $2.00 | $0.548 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 91 tok/s | 56 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 131.8 s | 38.8 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,050,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1504 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.7%† | 79.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 46.3% | 49.4% |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 28.0% | 26.6% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 15.3% |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 60.9% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1538 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1625 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 90.8%† | 81.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 55.1% | 60.9% |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 39.3% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 43.0% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 48.8% |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | – | 0.5% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | – | 41.3% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 85.2% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 1158.1 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 55.6% | 34.9% |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 36.0% | 45.4% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 54.4% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 3.3 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 48.6%† | 35.2% |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 93.1%† | 77.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 67.8% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 59.1% |
Show all 75 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | GPT-6.1 Terra (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agents & tools | |||
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 37.5% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 72.9% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 57.3% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | – | 64.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 13.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 10.8% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | – | 47.1% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 3.0% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | – | 32.4% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 31.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 2.9% |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 60.2% | 58.6% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 28.6% | 19.2% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1402 | 1511 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 57.6% | 5.7% |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 63.3% |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 26.2% |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 78.6% |
| Maths | |||
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 70.0% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1489 |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 82.3%† | 72.3% |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 73.9%† | 76.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 29.8 | 8.4 |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 62.9% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 67.3% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 45.0% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 88.3% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 68.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 49.1% | 34.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 62.0% | 59.4% |
| Instruction following | |||
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1471 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1446 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1457 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1494 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1263 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 82.3%† | 78.5% |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 84.7% | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | – | 45.0% |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 983 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 82.7% | 86.3% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 12.8% |
| Composite | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 77.2%† | 68.5% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 48.1 | 46.3 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | – | 57.8 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | – | 57.9% |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 57.8% |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | – | 56.1 |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 18.2%† | – |
| Metadata | |||
| AA Openness Index | Artificial Analysis | – | 52.8 |
Data as of 2026-10-27. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: BenchLeader Index 64.2 → 63.7.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 3 score revisions.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 7 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 3 score revisions.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: BenchLeader Index 65.4 → 64.2.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 8 new results (LiveBench 2.0, LiveBench Long Agentic, LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning…); 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 new result (Analyst Agent (AA)).
Related comparisons
- GPT-6.1 Terra vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra vs Claude Fable 5.1
- GPT-6.1 Terra vs GPT-6 Astra
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Claude Fable 5.1
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Muse Wonder Full
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
GPT-6.1 Terra vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: questions
- Is GPT-6.1 Terra better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- GPT-6.1 Terra (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (65.9 vs 63.7, within the ±8.2 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-27, so check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, GPT-6.1 Terra or MiMo-V2.6-Pro, and will that change?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper today: $0.548 against $2.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Which is better for long documents?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 66). Both take about 1.1M tokens: GPT-6.1 Terra 1,050,000, MiMo-V2.6-Pro 1,048,576.
- Which has lower latency?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro answers first: 38.8 s against 131.8 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
- Which is faster, GPT-6.1 Terra or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- GPT-6.1 Terra streams faster: 91 against 56 output tokens per second.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on GPT-6.1 Terra vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- Across the 13 benchmarks both have, GPT-6.1 Terra leads 8, MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 5. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Terra ahead.
- When was GPT-6.1 Terra released?
- GPT-6.1 Terra was released on 26 Oct 2026.