The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 7.6. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.1x cheaper per token.

Meta · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 7.6, ranking #29 overall.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 1.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.20/M input and $0.20/M output

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.6 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 1.1x cheaper per token
  • 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.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Meta
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
7.6
#289
45.6
#29
Reasoning
6.3
#291
42.5
#45
Coding
3.6
#218
36.7
#21
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.20 / M
$0.14 / M
Output price
$0.20 / M
$0.28 / M
Context window
128,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Tool use
24.5#31
24.7#29
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

18 reported for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct · 16 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash

No common benchmarks found

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 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

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs less

For input processing, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens).

For output processing, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens) is 1.4x cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meta
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerLambda
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

239.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 239.0B more parameters than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, making it 341.4% larger.

Meta
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
70.0Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
70.0B
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.1 70B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Meta
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct does not.

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

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is licensed under Llama 3.1 Community License, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 26 months newer than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Jul 23, 2024

2.2 years ago

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

2.2yr 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

Provider Availability

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Groq, Cerebras, Together, Fireworks, Bedrock, Sambanova. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
groq logo
Groq
Input Price:Input: $0.59/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.78/1M
cerebras logo
Cerebras
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.60/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
sambanova logo
Sambanova
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $10.00/1M

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.28/1M
* 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash.

Which is better, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 7.6. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is made by Meta 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct compare to MiMo-V2.6-Flash in benchmarks?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct scores GSM-8K (CoT): 95.1%, ARC-C: 94.8%, API-Bank: 90.0%, IFEval: 87.5%, Multilingual MGSM (CoT): 86.9%. 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%.

Is Llama 3.1 70B Instruct cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.4x cheaper for input tokens. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.20/M input and $0.20/M output via lambda. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct supports 128K tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (7.6 vs 45.6), context window (128K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.20 vs $0.14/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Llama 3.1 Community License vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is developed by Meta and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi.

Related comparisons