The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 30.5. MiMo-V2-Flash is 3.5x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 30.5, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 3.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.0 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose MiMo-V2-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 3.5x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
MiMo-V2-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
30.5
#139
Reasoning
48.6
#18
30.6
#135
Coding
39.1
#15
17.4
#138
Agents
38.6
#9
8.0
#156
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.30 / M
Context window
1,048,576
256,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
MiMo-V2-Flash
Math
31.8#67
29.2#92
Tool use
30.9#7
6.2#164
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 15 for MiMo-V2-Flash

1 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while MiMo-V2-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Oct 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2-Flash costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Oct 20 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

454.2B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 has 454.2B more parameters than MiMo-V2-Flash, making it 147.0% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
309.0Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
309.0B
MiMo-V2-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Flash's 256,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input256,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Tue Oct 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under MIT.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

MiMo-V2-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 10 months newer than MiMo-V2-Flash.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

3 days ago

10mo newer
MiMo-V2-Flash

Dec 16, 2025

10 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek. MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

MiMo-V2-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MiMo-V2-Flash.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or MiMo-V2-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 30.5. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2-Flash is made by Xiaomi. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 compare to MiMo-V2-Flash in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%. MiMo-V2-Flash scores AIME 2025: 94.1%, Arena-Hard v2: 86.2%, MMLU-Pro: 84.9%, HMMT 2025: 84.4%, GPQA: 83.7%.

Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 cheaper than MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash is 3.0x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek. MiMo-V2-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.30/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2-Flash supports 256K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 30.5), context window (1.0M vs 256K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.10/M), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons