Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs MiMo-V2-Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated); MiMo-V2-Pro #17 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash and MiMo-V2-Pro share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 12 to MiMo-V2-Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 19
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2-Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.78 to 58.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 64.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.7% to 78%.
MiMo-V2-Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Δ | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2 | Margin→ 13.8 | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash38.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.7%B 78%Winner: MiMo-V2-ProΔ 4.3SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 73.7%; MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%. MiMo-V2-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 64% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 57.8% | Tie |
| Gert LabsSource | 54.35% | 36.68% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 8.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 40.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 28.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 4.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 26.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1238 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2-Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.78 to 58.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.7% and 78%.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash or MiMo-V2-Pro?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 64.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.