Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Hy3 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched at 43.0 and 45.6 on the LLM Stats Score. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.4x cheaper per token.
Tencent · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Hy3 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 43.0 and 45.6.
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 1.4x 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 Hy3
- you want predictable pricing at $0.14/M input and $0.58/M output
Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 1.4x 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.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
31 reported for Hy3 · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Hy3 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.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Hy3 ($0.14/1M tokens) costs the same as MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens).
For output processing, Hy3 ($0.58/1M tokens) is 2.1x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Hy3 is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 14.0B more parameters than Hy3, making it 4.7% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Hy3's 262,144 tokens. Only Hy3 specifies output context (262,144 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Hy3 does not.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Hy3
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Hy3 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.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Hy3 was released on 2026-07-06, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 3 months newer than Hy3.
Jul 6, 2026
2 months ago
Sep 22, 2026
0 days ago
2mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Hy3 is available from DeepInfra. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi.
Hy3
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Hy3 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.