Compare / EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
Updated November 2026
Verdict
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B scores higher on the Small LM Index: 42.5 vs 27.0. On the 5 benchmarks both labs report, EXAONE 4.0 1.2B wins 2 and MiniCPM-V 4.6 wins 3. Both need about 1.8 GB of memory at 4-bit quantization. Neither model has a hosted API on OpenRouter, so you would run both yourself.
Pick EXAONE 4.0 1.2B if…
- you want the strongest model overall
Pick MiniCPM-V 4.6 if…
- you need precise instruction following
- you build agents that call tools
- you work with long documents
- you need a permissive license (Apache-2.0)
- you need image input
- you want the more widely used model (more quantized builds and community support)
Specifications
| EXAONE 4.0 1.2B | MiniCPM-V 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Small LM Index | 42.5 (likely 40–45) | 27.0 (likely 19–39) |
| Lab | LG AI Research (EXAONE) · Rest of Asia | OpenBMB (MiniCPM) · China |
| Released | 2025-07-15 | 2026-04-13 |
| Parameters | 1.3B (dense) | 1.3B (dense) |
| Memory at 4-bit | ~1.8 GB | ~1.4 GB |
| Context window | 64K tokens | 262K tokens |
| Input | text | text, image, video |
| Reasoning | Hybrid (thinking on/off) | No thinking |
| License | EXAONE License (non-commercial) | Apache-2.0 |
| API price / 1M tokens | Self-host only | Self-host only |
| Hugging Face downloads (30 days) | 13.2K | 196.5K |
Benchmarks
Higher is better. Bold marks the winner where both labs report a score. ≈ marks the index model's estimate for a score that wasn't reported, ✓ an independent measurement and * a score measured by another lab.
| Benchmark | EXAONE 4.0 1.2B | MiniCPM-V 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro Knowledge | 58.8✓ | ≈ 50 |
| GPQA Diamond Knowledge | 51.5✓ | 30.5✓ |
| Humanity's Last Exam Reasoning | 6.0✓ | 5.1✓ |
| AIME Math | 50.3✓ | ≈ 17 |
| LiveCodeBench Coding | 51.6✓ | ≈ 18 |
| τ²-Bench Agentic | 16.4✓ | 87.7✓ |
| IFBench Instruction following | 23.0✓ | 26.7✓ |
| MMLU Knowledge | 71.5 | — |
| Multilingual MMLU Multilingual | 62.4 | — |
| IFEval Instruction following | 67.8 | — |
| BFCL Agentic | 52.9 | — |
| HMMT Math | 34.0 | — |
| AA-LCR Long context | 0.0✓ | 7.0✓ |
Scores are mostly reported by each lab with its own settings, so small gaps are noise. See the methodology. Open in the interactive comparison to add more models.
Questions
Which is better, EXAONE 4.0 1.2B or MiniCPM-V 4.6?
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B scores higher on the Small LM Index: 42.5 vs 27.0. On the 5 benchmarks both labs report, EXAONE 4.0 1.2B wins 2 and MiniCPM-V 4.6 wins 3.
Which is cheaper to run?
Neither model has a hosted API on OpenRouter, so you would run both yourself. Both need about 1.8 GB of memory at 4-bit quantization.
Which has the longer context window?
MiniCPM-V 4.6 has the longer context window: 262K tokens against 64K.
Can I use EXAONE 4.0 1.2B and MiniCPM-V 4.6 commercially?
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B is released under EXAONE License (non-commercial) and MiniCPM-V 4.6 under Apache-2.0. Apache 2.0 and MIT allow commercial use; other licenses can add conditions, so read the license before shipping a product.
Related comparisons
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs LFM3 1.7B
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs Spark-X2.6 1.7B
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs Llama 3.2 1B
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs LFM2.5 1.2B Instruct
- LFM3 1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
- MiniCPM-V 4.6 vs Spark-X2.6 1.7B
- Llama 3.2 1B vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
- LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
- LFM2.5 1.2B Instruct vs MiniCPM-V 4.6