Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 24.8. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 6.0x cheaper per token.

InclusionAI · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 24.8, ranking #39 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 6.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.5-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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

overall performance matters — it scores 43.3 and ranks #39 on LLM Stats
your work emphasizes reasoning and 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 6.0x cheaper per token
you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose MiMo-V2.5-Pro

you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Better token value: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Core performance indexes

LLM Stats Score

43.3

#39 · 5 evals

Best

24.8

#159 · 27 evals

Reasoning

44.7

#32 · 4 evals

Best

24.2

#157 · 25 evals

Agents

29.5

#35 · 5 evals

Best

22.3

#56 · 6 evals

Cost, coverage & limits

Benchmark wins

1 of 1

Best

0 of 1

Input price

$0.06 / M

Best

$0.43 / M

Output price

$0.18 / M

Best

$0.87 / M

Context window

262,144

1,048,576

Best

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared

Index

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Tool use

20.5#56 · 2 evals

23.3#40 · 2 evals

Finance

36.7#5 · 2 evals

20.7#80 · 3 evals

Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 31 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro

1 shared

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Finance Agent v2), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is better at 0 benchmarks.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs less

For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens) is 7.3x cheaper than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens).

For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens) is 4.8x cheaper than MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens).

In conclusion, MiMo-V2.5-Pro is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers

Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Input tokens$0.06

Output tokens$0.18

Best providerDeepinfra

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Input tokens$0.43

Output tokens$0.87

Best providerXiaomi

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

899.2B diff

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 899.2B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin, making it 725.2% larger.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

124.0Bparameters

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

1.0Tparameters

124.0B

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

1023.2B

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's 262,144 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro is limited to 131,072 tokens.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Input262,144 tokens

Output262,144 tokens

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Input1,048,576 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 4 months newer than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

5 days ago

4mo newer

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Apr 27, 2026

4 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

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available from Xiaomi, DeepInfra, Novita.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.06/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Xiaomi

Input Price:Input: $0.43/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.87/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M

Novita

Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $6.00/1M

* 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.5-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

✓ Preferred

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 24.8. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI and MiMo-V2.5-Pro is made by Xiaomi. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Ling 3.0 Flash Fin compare to MiMo-V2.5-Pro in benchmarks?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin scores SpreadSheetBench-v1: 86.5%, Finance Agent v1.1: 69.2%, Finance Agent v2: 59.8%, Tau3 Banking: 41.0%, APEX-Agents: 29.2%. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores FrontierSWE (Impl.): 100.0%, GSM8k: 99.6%, ARC-C: 97.2%, MMLU-Redux: 92.8%, C-Eval: 91.5%.

Is Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cheaper than MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 7.3x cheaper for input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs $0.43/M input and $0.87/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens and MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (43.3 vs 24.8), context window (262K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.06 vs $0.43/M), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.5-Pro?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI and MiMo-V2.5-Pro is developed by Xiaomi.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro