MiMo V2.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash and MiMo V2.6 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro on Vision Evals
MiMo V2.6 Pro scores higher on 3 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where MiMo V2.6 Pro leads 42.0% to 37.8%.
Overall, MiMo V2.6 Flash averages 49.2% (#55 of 63) against 50.3% (#54 of 63) for MiMo V2.6 Pro.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.0011 per sample), while MiMo V2.6 Pro is faster (9.5s vs 16.3s per sample).
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 24, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Flash | MiMo V2.6 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Xiaomi |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | 1.02T total, 42B active |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.140 | $0.435 |
| Output $/1M | $0.280 | $0.870 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| object-detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 49.2% | 50.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0003 | $0.0011 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.34s | 9.45s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 |
| Counting (low) | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 |
| Counting (high) | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 |
| Identification (high) | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 |
| OCR (low) | 49.7% | 48.6% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 50.4% | 49.9% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 |
| Reasoning (high) | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 |
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs MiMo V2.6 Pro: Overview
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.
MiMo V2.6 Pro is the flagship omni-modal foundation model in Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 series, released as open weights alongside a Flash variant and a 9B distillation of Qwen3.5. It uses a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with 1.02 trillion total parameters and roughly 42 billion activated per token, paired with a hybrid attention design that interleaves sliding-window and global attention layers to support a context window of about one million tokens. Dedicated encoders handle non-text inputs, including a vision encoder of roughly 681 million parameters and an audio tokenizer stack, so the model accepts text, images, video, and audio and returns text.
Post-training centers on large-scale reinforcement learning across thousands of interactive environments, combined with agentic grading, self-correction cold start, and a multi-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation stage that extends behavior to tasks that are hard to verify automatically. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.