Model comparison
Inkling vs MiMo-V2-Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; MiMo-V2-Flash unranked
BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; MiMo-V2-Flash supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and MiMo-V2-Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Inkling; 18 to MiMo-V2-Flash.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Inkling only
- 14
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for MiMo-V2-Flash. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. MiMo-V2-Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.
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 | Inkling | Δ | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Inkling51.7 | Margin→ 33.0 | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | Margin→ 4.8 | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Math | Inkling97.1 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87.9%B 83.7%Winner: InklingΔ 4.2GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%. Inkling wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.6%B 73.4%Winner: InklingΔ 4.2SWE-bench Verified: Inkling scored 77.6%; MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1258 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 12.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 16.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 833 | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins6 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | MiMo-V2-Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | 83.7% | Inkling leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 8.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -48.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Flash?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.9% and 83.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 51.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.