Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash #96 (Supported); Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 9 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 3
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MiMo-V2-Flash makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 5 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-Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 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.
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 | MiMo-V2-Flash | Δ | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 | Margin→ 4.2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.4%B 77.6%Winner: Mistral Medium 3.5 128BΔ 4.2SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 12.0% | 19.0% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 83.9% | 94.2% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 16.9% | 21.6% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 838 | 933 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.10% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 69.1% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 516 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 29.9% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 65.6% | 74.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 8.0% | 12.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.5% | -36.3% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.2% | 25.1% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.1% | 82.0% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 64.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 39.9% | 68.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
MiMo-V2-Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Flash or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 73.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.