Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: MiMo-V2-Flash supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash share 16 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 14 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 4
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MiMo-V2-Flash makes more sense if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Step 3.7 Flash is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.
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 Step 3.7 Flash finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Step 3.7 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.15 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 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 | Margin← 17.1 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | MiMo-V2-Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 12.0% | 21.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 83.9% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 16.7% | 25.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 833 | 1017 | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 51.57% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.8% | 39.6% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 25.8% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 25.9% | 40.0% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 65.6% | 80.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 8.0% | 19.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.5% | -37.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.2% | 25.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.1% | 84.4% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 39.9% | 67.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash are tied on the provisional 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 Step 3.7 Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 56.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.