Agentic
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
12 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Updated September 21, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. This is a same-family comparison, so migration details appear when the source data supports them.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.6-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
MiMo-V2.6-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—MiMo-V2.6-Flash—MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not comparable · BenchAlign
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 Shared
- Shared results
- 12
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash only
- 0
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 9 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
AutomationBench
Agentic
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.00028
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.00087
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.00784
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.02436
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.00616
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.01812
- Fits in one request
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
API model ID
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
$0.0028 per 1M cached input tokens
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 launchMiMo-V2.6-Pro
$0.0036 per 1M cached input tokens
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 launchDocumented inputs
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open Weight
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open Weight
License
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Open Weight
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open Weight
Release date
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
2026-09-22
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
2026-09-22
If you are choosing between sibling variants
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Xiaomi as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.00784 vs $0.02436. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.00616 vs $0.01812.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence12 rows
Agentic
Toolathlon-Verified
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash73.6%MiMo-V2.6-Pro76.9%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
AutomationBench
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash52.3%MiMo-V2.6-Pro53.1%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Agents' Last Exam
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash27.6%MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.6%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash28.80%MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.90%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash87.6%MiMo-V2.6-Pro89.9%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
JobBench
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash61.2%MiMo-V2.6-Pro62.0%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
CyberGym
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash95.1%MiMo-V2.6-Pro94.0%MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads this result
ExploitGym
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash6.0%MiMo-V2.6-Pro17.8%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Coding
DeepSWE
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash67.9%MiMo-V2.6-Pro71.9%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
ProgramBench
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash26.0%MiMo-V2.6-Pro26.5%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Shared sourceMiMo-V2.6-Flash87.6%MiMo-V2.6-Pro89.9%MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
Questions
Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00028 on MiMo-V2.6-Flash and $0.00087 on MiMo-V2.6-Pro; repository review costs $0.00784 and $0.02436; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.00616 and $0.01812. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 21, 2026
Watch MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.