The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.4 to 22.0. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is 1.6x cheaper per token.

Xiaomi · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.4 to 22.0, ranking #32 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2.6-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is roughly 1.6x 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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.4 and ranks #32 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

  • cost matters — it's about 1.6x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.4
#32
22.0
#183
Reasoning
42.1
#47
19.6
#200
Coding
36.3
#22
8.3
#185
Agents
32.8
#27
6.8
#144
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.14 / M
$0.08 / M
Output price
$0.28 / M
$0.20 / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Tool use
24.3#33
-0.1#183
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 13 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

1 shared

MiMo-V2.6-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is better at 0 benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens) is 1.8x more expensive than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) ($0.08/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) ($0.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is more expensive than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B).*

* 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-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
Best providerXiaomi
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Input tokens$0.08
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

279.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 279.0B more parameters than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B), making it 930.0% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
30.0Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
30.0B
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)'s 262,144 tokens. Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) does not.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) uses OpenMDW License v1.1.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

OpenMDW License v1.1

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) was released on 2026-08-11.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1 month newer than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B).

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

1mo newer
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

Aug 11, 2026

1 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

Provider Availability

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is available from DeepInfra.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.28/1M

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.08/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
* 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-V2.6-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B).

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.4 to 22.0. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does MiMo-V2.6-Flash compare to Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) in benchmarks?

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%. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) scores PinchBench: 85.4%, MMLU-Pro: 81.9%, GPQA: 75.4%, IFBench: 71.9%, AA-LCR: 52.0%.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash cheaper than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is 1.8x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) costs $0.08/M input and $0.20/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.4 vs 22.0), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.14 vs $0.08/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs OpenMDW License v1.1). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons