The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 30.7. MiMo-V2-Flash is 3.6x cheaper per token.

Xiaomi · Xiaomi · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 30.7, ranking #19 overall.

On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 3.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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 MiMo-V2-Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 3.6x cheaper per token

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro

  • overall performance matters — it scores 49.8 and ranks #19 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • 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.

Core performance indexes
30.7
#120
49.8
#19
30.8
#116
45.2
#30
17.5
#121
41.8
#9
8.1
#137
37.5
#13
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.43 / M
Output price
$0.30 / M
$0.87 / M
Context window
256,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
6.2#148
28.0#21
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

15 reported for MiMo-V2-Flash · 18 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Prodon'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-Flash costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 4.3x cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 2.9x cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens).

In conclusion, MiMo-V2.6-Pro is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerXiaomi
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Input tokens$0.43
Output tokens$0.87
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

711.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 711.0B more parameters than MiMo-V2-Flash, making it 230.1% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
1.0Tparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2-Flash
1020.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Flash's 256,000 tokens. Only MiMo-V2-Flash specifies output context (16,384 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input256,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.6-Pro supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.

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

MiMo-V2-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under MIT.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

MiMo-V2-Flash

MIT

Open weights

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16, while MiMo-V2.6-Pro was released on 2026-09-22.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 9 months newer than MiMo-V2-Flash.

MiMo-V2-Flash

Dec 16, 2025

9 months ago

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

9mo 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

MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is available from Xiaomi.

MiMo-V2-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.43/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.87/1M
* 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 MiMo-V2-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2-Flash
✓ Preferred
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro.

Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 30.7. MiMo-V2-Flash is made by Xiaomi and MiMo-V2.6-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 MiMo-V2-Flash compare to MiMo-V2.6-Pro in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2-Flash scores AIME 2025: 94.1%, Arena-Hard v2: 86.2%, MMLU-Pro: 84.9%, HMMT 2025: 84.4%, GPQA: 83.7%. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores CyberGym: 94.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 89.9%, OSWorld-Verified: 82.0%, MiMo Cyber Bench: 81.7%, Toolathlon-Verified: 76.9%.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2-Flash is 4.3x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.30/M output via xiaomi. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs $0.43/M input and $0.87/M output via xiaomi.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2-Flash supports 256K tokens and MiMo-V2.6-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 MiMo-V2-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (30.7 vs 49.8), context window (256K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.43/M), multimodal support (no vs yes). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.