The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.4. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 2.9x 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 35.4, ranking #15 overall.

On price, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is roughly 2.9x 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
  • cost matters — it's about 2.9x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose MiMo-V2-Pro

  • you want predictable pricing at $1.00/M input and $3.00/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
MiMo-V2-Pro
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
35.4
#103
Reasoning
48.6
#18
37.5
#84
Coding
39.1
#15
25.3
#85
Agents
38.6
#9
16.8
#97
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.30 / M
$1.00 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$3.00 / M
Context window
1,048,576
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
MiMo-V2-Pro
Tool use
30.9#7
18.4#80
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 7 for MiMo-V2-Pro

No common benchmarks found

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2-Prodon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.3x cheaper than MiMo-V2-Pro ($1.00/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.5x cheaper than MiMo-V2-Pro ($3.00/1M tokens).

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

* 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-Pro
Input tokens$1.00
Output tokens$3.00
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

236.8B diff

MiMo-V2-Pro has 236.8B more parameters than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017, making it 31.0% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Pro
1.0Tparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
1000.0B
MiMo-V2-Pro

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

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

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Pro
Input1,000,000 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-Pro 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-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is licensed under MIT, while MiMo-V2-Pro uses a proprietary license.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

MiMo-V2-Pro

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while MiMo-V2-Pro was released on 2026-03-18.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 7 months newer than MiMo-V2-Pro.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

3 days ago

7mo newer
MiMo-V2-Pro

Mar 18, 2026

7 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-Pro 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-Pro

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
* 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-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

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

FAQ

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

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.4. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2-Pro 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-Pro 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-Pro scores Tau2 Telecom: 96.8%, DeepSearchQA: 86.7%, PinchBench: 81.0%, SWE-Bench Verified: 78.0%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 71.7%.

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 3.3x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek. MiMo-V2-Pro costs $1.00/M input and $3.00/M output via xiaomi.

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2-Pro supports 1.0M 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-Pro?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 35.4), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.30 vs $1.00/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

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

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

Related comparisons