The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 44.8. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 3.0x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 44.8, ranking #15 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 3.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

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 51.2 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 3.0x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.2
#15
44.8
#45
Reasoning
48.8
#18
43.6
#50
Coding
39.3
#14
34.0
#37
Agents
38.7
#8
32.0
#38
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 4
0 of 4
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.14 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.28 / M
Context window
1,048,576
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Tool use
31.3#6
26.4#33
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash

4 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (Agents' Last Exam, DeepSWE 1.1, Program Bench, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while MiMo-V2.6-Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

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

Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 2.1x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 4.3x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
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-V2.6-Flash, making it 147.0% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 1,048,576 tokens. Only DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 specifies output context (393,216 tokens).

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 1 month newer than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

3 days ago

3w newer
MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

4 weeks 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-V2.6-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-V2.6-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.28/1M
* 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-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 44.8. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2.6-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-V2.6-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-V2.6-Flash scores CyberGym: 95.1%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 87.6%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, MiMo Cyber Bench: 77.2%, Toolathlon-Verified: 73.6%.

Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 2.1x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.2 vs 44.8), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.14/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons