The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 25.6.

InclusionAI · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 25.6, 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 agents — 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-Pro

  • 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-Pro
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
25.6
#171
Reasoning
47.5
#26
24.0
#176
Coding
38.8
#18
32.2
#46
Agents
38.0
#12
23.5
#66
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
— / M
$0.43 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.87 / M
Context window
—
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Tool use
29.0#16
23.1#43
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 31 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro

1 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Finance Agent v2), while MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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

463.2B diff

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 463.2B more parameters than Ling 3.1 Flash, making it 82.7% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1.0Tparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
1023.2B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

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

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

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27.

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

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

5mo newer
MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Apr 27, 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-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

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

FAQ

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

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

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 25.6. Ling 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash compare to MiMo-V2.5-Pro 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-Pro scores FrontierSWE (Impl.): 100.0%, GSM8k: 99.6%, ARC-C: 97.2%, MMLU-Redux: 92.8%, C-Eval: 91.5%.

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

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

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 25.6), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

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

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

Related comparisons