The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 23.8. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 2.8x cheaper per token.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 23.8, ranking #29 overall.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 2.8x 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 45.6 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 2.8x 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

Choose Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.15/M input and $1.50/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.6
#29
23.8
#174
Reasoning
42.5
#45
24.5
#158
Agents
33.1
#26
12.2
#106
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.14 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$0.28 / M
$1.50 / M
Context window
1,048,576
65,536

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
Tool use
24.7#29
11.0#117
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 23 for Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinkingdon'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, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens) is 1.1x cheaper than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens) is 5.4x cheaper than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking ($1.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking 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
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
Best providerXiaomi
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$1.50
Best providerNovita
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

229.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 229.0B more parameters than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking, making it 286.3% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
80.0Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
80.0B
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking's 65,536 tokens. Only Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking specifies output context (65,536 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
Input65,536 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking 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

Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking was released on 2025-09-10.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 13 months newer than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

1.0yr newer
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

Sep 10, 2025

1.0 years 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. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is available from Novita.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

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

Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.50/1M
* 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 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 23.8. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking 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%. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking scores MMLU-Redux: 92.5%, IFEval: 88.9%, AIME 2025: 87.8%, WritingBench: 84.6%, MMLU-Pro: 82.7%.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash cheaper than Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.1x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking costs $0.15/M input and $1.50/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking supports 66K 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 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.6 vs 23.8), context window (1.0M vs 66K), input pricing ($0.14 vs $0.15/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons