The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 0.4.

NVIDIA · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 0.4, ranking #29 overall.

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

Choose Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

  • you are already invested in the NVIDIA ecosystem

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.6 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
NVIDIA
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
0.4
#327
45.6
#29
Reasoning
0.1
#320
42.5
#45
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.14 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.28 / M
Context window
—
1,048,576

Individual benchmarks

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

No common benchmarks found

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

239.0B diff

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

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

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2.6-Flash specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens).

NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- 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 Nemotron 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 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 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 Nemotron 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 Nemotron 70B Instruct was released on 2024-10-01, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 24 months newer than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Oct 1, 2024

2.0 years ago

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

2.0yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-12-01, while MiMo-V2.6-Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct's training data extends to 2023-12-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without MiMo-V2.6-Flash's cutoff date.

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Dec 2023

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

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

FAQ

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

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 0.4. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is made by NVIDIA 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 Nemotron 70B Instruct compare to MiMo-V2.6-Flash in benchmarks?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct scores GSM8k: 91.4%, HellaSwag: 85.6%, Winogrande: 84.5%, GSM8K Chat: 81.9%, MMLU Chat: 80.6%. 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 Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct supports an unknown number of 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 Nemotron 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (0.4 vs 45.6), 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 Nemotron 70B Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

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

Related comparisons