Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 43.0. Hy3 is 2.2x cheaper per token.
Tencent · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 43.0, ranking #19 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2.6-Pro wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Hy3 is roughly 2.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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
- cost matters — it's about 2.2x cheaper per token
Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- overall performance matters — it scores 49.8 and ranks #19 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- 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 · 18 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Hy3 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while MiMo-V2.6-Pro is better at 1 benchmark (Terminal-Bench 2.1).
MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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) is 3.1x cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens).
For output processing, Hy3 ($0.58/1M tokens) is 1.5x cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiMo-V2.6-Pro is more expensive than Hy3.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 725.0B more parameters than Hy3, making it 245.8% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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-Pro supports multimodal inputs, whereas Hy3 does not.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Hy3
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
License
Usage and distribution terms
Hy3 is licensed under Apache 2.0, while MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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-Pro was released on 2026-09-22.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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-Pro is available from Xiaomi.
Hy3
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Hy3 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Hy3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro.