Roboflow

Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash

Compare Grok 4.6 and MiMo V2.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, OCR, and Object Detection.

Compare Grok 4.6 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
GrokGrok 4.6
Run to compare this model.
MiMo V2.6 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash on Vision Evals

Grok 4.6 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Grok 4.6 leads 61.1% to 33.1%.

Overall, Grok 4.6 averages 68.7% (#30 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0097 per sample) and faster (9.2s vs 17.5s per sample).

Grok 4.6MiMo V2.6 Flash

Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyGrok 4.6MiMo V2.6 Flash
OrganizationSpaceXAIXiaomi
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateAug 2026Sep 2026
Context Window500K1.0M
Parameters309B total, 15B active
LicenseProprietaryMIT
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.140
Output $/1M$6.00$0.280
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
68.7%
60.6%
Avg cost / sample$0.0097$0.0003
Avg speed / sample17.55s9.20s
By task
Object Detection (low)
23.8%
±2.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 20.2 to 25.9
$0.013
37.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7
$0.0004
Object Detection (high)
24.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 23.1 to 25.1
$0.041
45.0%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1
$0.0009
Counting (low)
65.8%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 70.3
$0.0079
49.5%
±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1
$0.0002
Counting (high)
56.8%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.4 to 58.1
$0.027
64.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2
$0.0003
Identification (low)
84.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0055
76.0%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1
$0.0001
Identification (high)
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.015
82.3%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5
$0.0003
OCR (low)
91.8%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.5 to 92.1
$0.0091
87.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7
$0.0003
OCR (high)
91.6%
±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.4 to 91.7
$0.023
87.0%
±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5
$0.0016
Data Extraction (low)
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0050
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
85.6%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 86.6
$0.0090
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0004
Reasoning (low)
61.1%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.6 to 62.3
$0.0093
33.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
63.8%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.3 to 66.2
$0.032
58.5%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6
$0.0008

Grok 4.6 vs MiMo V2.6 Flash: Overview

Grok 4.6

Grok 4.6 is a proprietary reasoning model from xAI aimed at long-running agentic workflows, coding, and knowledge work. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 500,000 token context window and a knowledge cutoff of February 1, 2026. The model exposes an adjustable reasoning budget with low, medium, high, and xhigh settings, where high is the default, and it supports function calling, structured outputs, web and X search, and code execution as documented tool behaviors. Its visual capability covers interpreting images supplied alongside text prompts, which places it in the visual question answering and document understanding family, and it can also return object detection boxes as text coordinates when prompted.

xAI characterizes Grok 4.6 as the result of an extended post-training run over the Grok 4.5 lineage rather than a new pretrained base. The described recipe combines curated model-generated reasoning and technical data, engineering data, a revised optimizer, regenerated supervised fine-tuning trajectories, and reinforcement learning across agent environments spanning knowledge work, coding, kernel optimization, web development, and computer-aided design. Parameter count and architecture specifics are not disclosed. Independent measurement from Artificial Analysis places the model at 61 on its Intelligence Index, five points above Grok 4.5.

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. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Grok 4.6 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.7% (#30 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) 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, Grok 4.6 leads with 61.1% 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 $0.0097. Grok 4.6 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 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.

MiMo V2.6 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 9.2s per inference against 17.5s. 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 open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.