The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.9.

InclusionAI · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.9, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.0 and ranks #15 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
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose MiMo-V2.5

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
MiMo-V2.5
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
35.9
#95
Reasoning
47.5
#26
35.4
#92
Coding
38.8
#18
28.7
#65
Agents
38.0
#12
20.8
#74
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
— / M
$0.17 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.34 / M
Context window
—
1,048,576

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 14 for MiMo-V2.5

1 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Finance Agent v2), while MiMo-V2.5 is better at 0 benchmarks.

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

249.2B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 249.2B more parameters than MiMo-V2.5, making it 80.2% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
310.8Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
310.8B
MiMo-V2.5

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2.5 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only MiMo-V2.5 specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

MiMo-V2.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while MiMo-V2.5 was released on 2026-04-22.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 5 months newer than MiMo-V2.5.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

5mo newer
MiMo-V2.5

Apr 22, 2026

5 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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Ling 3.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.5
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or MiMo-V2.5?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.9. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and MiMo-V2.5 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 3.1 Flash compare to MiMo-V2.5 in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. MiMo-V2.5 scores HR-Bench (4k): 88.5%, Video-MME: 87.7%, OmniDocBench: 87.2%, GraphWalks: 87.0%, DailyOmni: 83.5%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.5?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and MiMo-V2.5 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 3.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.5?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 35.9), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.5?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and MiMo-V2.5 is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons