The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

IBM Granite 4.2 30B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 23.8. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.6x cheaper per token.

IBM · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 23.8, ranking #29 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2.6-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 1.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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 IBM Granite 4.2 30B

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.16/M input and $0.65/M output

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.6 and ranks #29 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
  • cost matters — it's about 1.6x 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 Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

IBM Granite 4.2 30B
IBM
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
23.8
#173
45.6
#29
Reasoning
21.5
#181
42.5
#45
Coding
9.2
#178
36.7
#21
Agents
7.1
#141
33.1
#26
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$0.16 / M
$0.14 / M
Output price
$0.65 / M
$0.28 / M
Context window
131,072
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Tool use
6.8#144
24.7#29
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

18 reported for IBM Granite 4.2 30B · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash

1 shared

IBM Granite 4.2 30B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Terminal-Bench 2.1).

MiMo-V2.6-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 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, IBM Granite 4.2 30B ($0.16/1M tokens) is 1.1x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens).

For output processing, IBM Granite 4.2 30B ($0.65/1M tokens) is 2.3x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens).

In conclusion, IBM Granite 4.2 30B is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
IBM
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
Input tokens$0.16
Output tokens$0.65
Best providerDeepinfra
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

279.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 279.0B more parameters than IBM Granite 4.2 30B, making it 930.0% larger.

IBM
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
30.0Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
30.0B
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to IBM Granite 4.2 30B's 131,072 tokens. Only IBM Granite 4.2 30B specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

IBM
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas IBM Granite 4.2 30B does not.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

IBM Granite 4.2 30B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash uses MIT.

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

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

IBM Granite 4.2 30B was released on 2026-08-25, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1 month newer than IBM Granite 4.2 30B.

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

Aug 25, 2026

4 weeks ago

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

4w newer

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

IBM Granite 4.2 30B is available from DeepInfra. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi.

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.16/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.65/1M

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?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against IBM Granite 4.2 30B and MiMo-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

IBM Granite 4.2 30B
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about IBM Granite 4.2 30B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Which is better, IBM Granite 4.2 30B or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 23.8. IBM Granite 4.2 30B is made by IBM 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 IBM Granite 4.2 30B compare to MiMo-V2.6-Flash in benchmarks?

IBM Granite 4.2 30B scores RULER 64k: 90.0%, AIME 2025: 89.2%, HMMT25: 89.2%, RULER 128k: 81.4%, MMLU-Pro: 77.6%. 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 IBM Granite 4.2 30B cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.1x cheaper for input tokens. IBM Granite 4.2 30B costs $0.16/M input and $0.65/M output via deepinfra. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for IBM Granite 4.2 30B and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

IBM Granite 4.2 30B supports 131K 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 IBM Granite 4.2 30B and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (23.8 vs 45.6), context window (131K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.16 vs $0.14/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes IBM Granite 4.2 30B and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

IBM Granite 4.2 30B is developed by IBM and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons