ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Step 3.5 Flash 2603 vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs MiMo-V2.5

MiMo-V2.5 comes out ahead, 79 to 62 and 61 on our weighted score, though Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is 14% cheaper per token.

  1. StepFun

    Step 3.5 Flash 2603

    Released Apr 2, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.10 / $0.30
    • Context256K
  2. Z.ai (Zhipu)

    GLM-4.7-FlashX

    Released Jan 19, 2026

    61/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.07 / $0.40
    • Context200K
  3. Our pick

    Xiaomi

    MiMo-V2.5

    Released Apr 22, 2026

    79/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.14 / $0.28
    • Context1.05M
01 — Verdict

MiMo-V2.5 is our pick

MiMo-V2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Step 3.5 Flash 2603 (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceStep 3.5 Flash 2603Step 3.5 Flash 2603 $0.15 · GLM-4.7-FlashX $0.152 · MiMo-V2.5 $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextMiMo-V2.5MiMo-V2.5 1,048,576 · Step 3.5 Flash 2603 256,000 · GLM-4.7-FlashX 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsMiMo-V2.5Step 3.5 Flash 2603: Text · GLM-4.7-FlashX: Text · MiMo-V2.5: Text, Images, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightStep 3.5 Flash 2603GLM-4.7-FlashXMiMo-V2.5
Price50%898986
Inputs & features30%353580
Context window20%363261
Overall100%62/10061/10079/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Step 3.5 Flash 2603 vs GLM-4.7-FlashX vs MiMo-V2.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationStep 3.5 Flash 2603StepFunGLM-4.7-FlashXZ.ai (Zhipu)MiMo-V2.5Xiaomi
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10$0.07 (best)$0.14
Output$0.30$0.40$0.28 (best)
Cached input$0.02$0.01$0.0028 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.15 (best)$0.152$0.175
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial StepFun (Global) APIOfficial Z.AI APIOfficial Xiaomi API
Limits
Context window256,000 tokens200,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output256,000 tokens (best)131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoYes
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · highYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpen
API model IDstep-3.5-flash-2603glm-4.7-flashxmimo-v2.5
API providers3821 (best)
ReleasedApr 2, 2026Jan 19, 2026Apr 22, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 2025Apr 2025Dec 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Step 3.5 Flash 2603$1.60
  • GLM-4.7-FlashX$1.50
  • MiMo-V2.5$1.96
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Step 3.5 Flash 2603, GLM-4.7-FlashX or MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Step 3.5 Flash 2603 (62) and GLM-4.7-FlashX (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Step 3.5 Flash 2603, GLM-4.7-FlashX or MiMo-V2.5?

Step 3.5 Flash 2603 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). GLM-4.7-FlashX costs $0.07 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash 2603 versus $0.152 for GLM-4.7-FlashX (1× as much) and $0.175 for MiMo-V2.5 (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 has not been scored yet, GLM-4.7-FlashX has not been scored yet and MiMo-V2.5 has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Step 3.5 Flash 2603, GLM-4.7-FlashX and MiMo-V2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash 2603 and 200,000 for GLM-4.7-FlashX. Maximum output per response: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 up to 256,000, GLM-4.7-FlashX up to 131,072, MiMo-V2.5 up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Step 3.5 Flash 2603 accepts text; GLM-4.7-FlashX accepts text; MiMo-V2.5 accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

MiMo-V2.5 is the newest, released Apr 22, 2026. Step 3.5 Flash 2603 came out Apr 2, 2026; GLM-4.7-FlashX came out Jan 19, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash 2603 Jan 2025, GLM-4.7-FlashX Apr 2025, MiMo-V2.5 Dec 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.