The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs MiMo-V2.5

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 35.5. MiMo-V2.5 is 1.6x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 35.5, ranking #13 overall.

On price, MiMo-V2.5 is roughly 1.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.5 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

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.8 and ranks #13 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose MiMo-V2.5

  • cost matters — it's about 1.6x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
DeepSeek
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.8
#13
35.5
#84
Reasoning
48.9
#18
35.6
#78
Coding
44.2
#5
26.8
#62
Agents
41.1
#4
18.8
#67
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.22 / M
$0.17 / M
Output price
$0.66 / M
$0.34 / M
Context window
1,040,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
MiMo-V2.5
Vision
29.5#31
23.7#54
Multimodal
34.3#13
26.0#42
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

20 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash · 14 for MiMo-V2.5

No common benchmarks found

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and MiMo-V2.5don'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

MiMo-V2.5 costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ($0.22/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5 ($0.17/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ($0.66/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than MiMo-V2.5 ($0.34/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is more expensive than MiMo-V2.5.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Input tokens$0.22
Output tokens$0.66
Best providerFireworks
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
Input tokens$0.17
Output tokens$0.34
Best providerNovita
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

452.4B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash has 452.4B more parameters than MiMo-V2.5, making it 145.6% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
763.2Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
310.8Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
310.8B
MiMo-V2.5

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.5 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash's 1,040,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while MiMo-V2.5 is limited to 131,072 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Input1,040,000 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and MiMo-V2.5 support multimodal inputs.

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.5

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

MIT

Open weights

MiMo-V2.5

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash was released on 2026-09-10, while MiMo-V2.5 was released on 2026-04-22.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is 5 months newer than MiMo-V2.5.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Sep 10, 2026

1 weeks ago

4mo newer
MiMo-V2.5

Apr 22, 2026

5 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 is available from Fireworks, DeepInfra, DeepSeek, Novita. MiMo-V2.5 is available from Novita, DeepInfra.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.22/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.66/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

MiMo-V2.5

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.17/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.34/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and MiMo-V2.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.5
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs MiMo-V2.5.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or MiMo-V2.5?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 35.5. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is made by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2.5 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 compare to MiMo-V2.5 in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash scores CodeForces: 100.0%, GPQA: 90.9%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 90.6%, BabyVision: 89.6%, CyberGym: 88.1%. MiMo-V2.5 scores HR-Bench (4k): 88.5%, Video-MME: 87.7%, OmniDocBench: 87.2%, GraphWalks: 87.0%, DailyOmni: 83.5%.

Is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash cheaper than MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is 1.3x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs $0.22/M input and $0.66/M output via fireworks. MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.17/M input and $0.34/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and MiMo-V2.5?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and MiMo-V2.5 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 and MiMo-V2.5?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.8 vs 35.5), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.22 vs $0.17/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and MiMo-V2.5?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is developed by DeepSeek and MiMo-V2.5 is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons