Model Comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs o3Which is better in 2026?
MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash is 23.3x cheaper per token.
Verdict: MiMo-V2-Flash vs o3 — which is better?
MiMo-V2-Flash (by Xiaomi) and o3 (by OpenAI) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 6 benchmarks (AIME 2025, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Tau-bench), while o3 is better at 0 benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 23.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
MiMo-V2-Flash also accepts a larger context window (256,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Choose MiMo-V2-Flash if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 6 of 6 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 23.3x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 256,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2025
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose o3 if…
- you want predictable pricing at $2.00/M input and $8.00/M output
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 6 benchmarks (AIME 2025, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Verified, Tau-bench), while o3 is better at 0 benchmarks.
MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 20.0x cheaper than o3 ($2.00/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 26.7x cheaper than o3 ($8.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, o3 is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
MiMo-V2-Flash accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to o3's 200,000 tokens. o3 can generate longer responses up to 100,000 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
o3 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.
o3 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
MiMo-V2-Flash
o3
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiMo-V2-Flash is licensed under MIT, while o3 uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16, while o3 was released on 2025-04-16.
MiMo-V2-Flash is 8 months newer than o3.
Dec 16, 2025
7 months ago
8mo newerApr 16, 2025
1.3 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
o3 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-05-31, while MiMo-V2-Flash's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm o3's training data extends to 2024-05-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without MiMo-V2-Flash's cutoff date.
—
May 2024
Provider Availability
MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi. o3 is available from OpenAI.
MiMo-V2-Flash
o3
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
o3
View detailsOpenAI
MiMo-V2-Flasho3Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2-Flash and o3 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2-Flash vs o3.