Skip to main content

Model comparison

Inkling vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
Margin
5.9pts
← winning
63.11/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; MiMo-V2-Omni unranked

BenchAlign evidence: Inkling not scored; MiMo-V2-Omni supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Inkling and MiMo-V2-Omni share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Inkling; 14 to MiMo-V2-Omni.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
1
Inkling only
15
MiMo-V2-Omni only
14
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Omni only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Inkling has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 69 versus 66. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

MiMo-V2-Omni 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 262K for MiMo-V2-Omni.

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 scores and score margins for Inkling and MiMo-V2-Omni
CategoryInklingΔMiMo-V2-Omni
CodingInkling68.6Margin 6.2MiMo-V2-Omni74.8
AgenticInkling69.4MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
KnowledgeInkling51.7MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
MathInkling97.1MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
MultimodalInkling76.5MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured
Inst. FollowingInkling79.8MarginNo overlapMiMo-V2-OmniNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · InklingB · MiMo-V2-Omni
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.6%B 74.8%
    Winner: InklingΔ 2.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Inkling scored 77.6%; MiMo-V2-Omni scored 74.8%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricInklingMiMo-V2-OmniComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondInklingNot availableMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenInklingNot availableMiMo-V2-OmniNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensInkling1MMiMo-V2-Omni262KInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 45.2%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 91.2%Not comparable
CodingMiMo-V2-Omni wins
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%74.8%Inkling leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 34.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 36.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
AA-LCRSource 66.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 1.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
GPQASource 87.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.9%Not comparable
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 82.8%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 19.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -17.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 18.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 44.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkInklingMiMo-V2-OmniResult
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 53.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Omni?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 77.6% and 74.8%.

Which is better for coding, Inkling or MiMo-V2-Omni?

MiMo-V2-Omni has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.8 versus 68.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 2026

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.