The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched at 43.0 and 45.7 on the LLM Stats Score.

InclusionAI · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 43.0 and 45.7.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
43.0
#46
45.7
#29
Reasoning
44.1
#36
43.2
#42
Agents
29.1
#42
33.3
#25
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.06 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.18 / M
— / M
Context window
262,144
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Tool use
20.3#60
28.1#22
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.6-Flashdon'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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

185.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 185.0B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin, making it 149.2% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Ling 3.0 Flash Fin specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Ling 3.0 Flash Fin specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input- 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.

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

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1 month newer than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

2 weeks ago

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

2w 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

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-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 43.0 and 45.7. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin compare to MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash scores CyberGym: 95.1%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 87.6%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, MiMo Cyber Bench: 77.2%, Toolathlon-Verified: 73.6%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports an unknown number of 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-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (43.0 vs 45.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons