Model vs model
Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
MiMo V2.6 Pro costs 1.2× as much as Ling 3.1 Flash, at $0.54 against $0.45 per 1M tokens blended. Its Intelligence Index lead of 46.3 to 43.9 is modest, but it widens to 49.4 against 43.5 on Humanity's Last Exam. Choose MiMo for hard reasoning and Ling 3.1 Flash for cheaper, high-volume work. MiMo also accepts images and offers a 1.05M-token context window.
At a glance
Longer bar means the bigger number.
Blended price · per 1M tokens, lower is better
Intelligence Index · Artificial Analysis, higher is better
Context window · tokens it can read at once
Where they sit among all 44 models
Ling 3.1 Flash ranks 12th of the 43 models with an Intelligence Index, MiMo V2.6 Pro 9th. Up and to the left is smarter for less money. Hover or tap a dot for its numbers, then click it to compare that model with Ling 3.1 Flash.
Which one to pick
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash if
- you want the lower bill ($0.45 vs $0.54 per 1M tokens blended)
Pick MiMo V2.6 Pro if
- you want the higher overall score (46.3 vs 43.9)
- you care about Humanity's Last Exam (hard reasoning): 49.4 vs 43.5
- you need a longer context window (1.05M vs 262K tokens)
- you need to send images
How smart is each one?
Of the 10 scores both models have, MiMo V2.6 Pro is ahead on 8, and 2 are within a point.
Every intelligence score we have
Out of 100, higher is better. Ling 3.1 Flash MiMo V2.6 Pro
Overall
Intelligence Index
43.946.3
By field of work
Finance & accounting
45.5 · 46.1Legal
41.644.8Healthcare & medicine
41Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Economics
49.953.2Engineering
44.346.9Strategy & operations
47.9 · 47.8
Benchmarks
Hard reasoning · Humanity's Last Exam
43.549.4Scientific coding · SciCode
56.860.9Terminal tasks · Terminal-Bench 4.0
32.834.8Long documents · AA-LCR
82.3 · 86.3
Our tests
Rule that has to last 4 turns · our test, % of tries passed
100Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Three bullets, no letter e · our test, % of tries passed
67Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
The specs
| Spec | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.30 per 1M | $0.43 per 1M |
| Output price | $0.90 per 1M | $0.87 per 1M |
| Cost per test task | Not tested | $0.1332 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 33K | 131K |
| Accepts | Text | Text, Image |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| Lab | InclusionAI | Xiaomi |
| Released | Sep 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Not published | Not published |
Blended price weighs 3 parts input to 1 part output. List prices from models.dev. Cost per test task from Artificial Analysis.
Questions
Is Ling 3.1 Flash or MiMo V2.6 Pro cheaper?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper. It charges $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $0.90 per 1M output tokens, against $0.43 and $0.87 for MiMo V2.6 Pro. Blended 3 parts input to 1 part output, that is $0.45 against $0.54 per 1M tokens.
Which is smarter, Ling 3.1 Flash or MiMo V2.6 Pro?
MiMo V2.6 Pro scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 46.3 against 43.9 for Ling 3.1 Flash. The biggest differences are on Humanity's Last Exam (43.5 vs 49.4) and SciCode (56.8 vs 60.9).
Which has the longer context window?
MiMo V2.6 Pro accepts 1.05M tokens, against 262K for Ling 3.1 Flash.
Can I compare Ling 3.1 Flash and MiMo V2.6 Pro on my own prompt?
Yes. ModelCompare sends one prompt to both models at once and shows each answer side by side with what it cost. You can try it free without an account.
Related comparisons
Where the numbers come from
Intelligence Index and benchmark scores are from Artificial Analysis, at each model’s highest effort, except SimpleQA, which is from Epoch AI, and the Uncensored score, which is from the UGI Leaderboard. The hallucination test is ours: questions with one exact answer, fake evidence pushed against right answers and requests that tempt a model to name packages that don’t exist. Prices are list prices from models.dev. Example answers come from our own test runs. Updated October 25, 2026.