Roboflow

GPT-6.1 Sol vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

GPT-6.1 Sol and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 81.7% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#9 and #61 of 69 models), so GPT-6.1 Sol leads overall.

  • GPT-6.1 Sol wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (83.7% vs 33.1%).
  • MiMo V2.6 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.0068 overall average cost per sample.
  • GPT-6.1 Sol is faster: 12.8s vs 16.3s per sample.

Compare GPT-6.1 Sol vs MiMo V2.6 Flash live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-6.1 Sol
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

GPT-6.1 Sol vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Score by taskGPT-6.1 SolMiMo V2.6 Flash
Reasoning
83.7
33.1
Object Detection
80.8
37.8
Counting
78.8
49.5
OCR
75.8
49.7
Identification
89.6
76.0

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

GPT-6.1 Sol vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026

PropertyGPT-6.1 SolMiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationOpenAIXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Sep 2026
Context Window1.1M1.0M
Parametersundisclosed309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.140
Output $/1M$10.00$0.280
Vision Tasks
Promptable Concept SegmentationDemoNot listed
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
81.7%
49.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0068$0.0003
Avg speed / sample12.82s16.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
80.8%
±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.7 to 80.9
$0.010
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
81.6%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 82.0
$0.022
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
78.8%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 82.4
$0.0037
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
80.2%
±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.0 to 83.8
$0.0057
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
89.6%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0025
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0030
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
75.8%
$0.0069
49.7%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
58.3%
Transcription
95.7%
Structured JSON
89.5%
Text localization
74.4%
Single value
41.7%
Transcription
72.5%
Structured JSON
68.6%
Text localization
9.2%
OCR (high)
75.8%
$0.016
50.4%
$0.0012
by category
Single value
56.5%
Transcription
96.0%
Structured JSON
90.4%
Text localization
76.7%
Single value
42.2%
Transcription
68.9%
Structured JSON
69.2%
Text localization
13.2%
Reasoning (low)
83.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.8
$0.0033
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
88.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.4 to 91.4
$0.0042
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

GPT-6.1 Sol vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

GPT-6.1 Sol

GPT-6.1 Sol is a reasoning model in OpenAI's GPT-6 series that accepts text and image input and returns text. It is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol positioned to approach the intelligence of the larger GPT-6 Astra model on agentic coding, computer use, and professional knowledge work. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning effort control, ranging from low settings for simple turns to maximum settings for harder tasks, and can be driven with tool use enabled or disabled. It operates over a context window of roughly one million tokens and emits up to 128,000 output tokens in a single response, which supports long-running agent loops over large codebases and multi-document collections. Audio and video inputs are not supported.

OpenAI reports that GPT-6.1 Sol performs on par with or better than GPT-6 Sol across its image input safety evaluations, and that the share of responses containing a factual error at low reasoning effort falls from 11.4 percent to 7.7 percent.

MiMo V2.6 Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.

Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Sol performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 81.7% (#9 of 69) against 49.2% (#61 of 69) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Sol leads with 83.7% against 33.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0003 per sample against $0.0068. GPT-6.1 Sol is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-6.1 Sol is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.8s per inference against 16.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.