MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Ember
Muse Ember and MiMo V2.6 Flash score 76.6% vs 49.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#16 and #59 of 67 models), so Muse Ember leads overall.
- Muse Ember wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (78.2% vs 33.1%).
- MiMo V2.6 Flash is about a third of the cost: $0.0003 vs $0.0009 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 16.3s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Ember live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Ember on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Ember Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Flash | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | Unknown |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.140 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $0.280 | $0.500 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 49.2% | 76.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0003 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.34s | 6.08s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 | 63.8% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3 |
| Object Detection (high) | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 | 91.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 | 90.6% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 49.7% | 69.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 50.4% | 70.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 |
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Ember: 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.
Muse Ember is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on November 9, 2026. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text. The Meta Model API serves it as muse-ember-1.0, with a 1,048,576-token context window and up to 524,288 output tokens. Reasoning effort is adjustable from minimal to max.
Meta positions Ember for repeated tasks within larger agent workflows: tool calls, routing, coding subtasks, and processing collections of images and documents. It can caption or sort photos and extract fields from records while a larger Muse model handles planning. Meta recommends Spark or Wonder for harder single-shot coding and knowledge-heavy problems. Ember is available as a hosted model; its weights are not publicly released.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Ember performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 76.6% (#16 of 67) against 49.2% (#59 of 67) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Ember leads with 78.2% 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 $0.0009. MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output; Muse Ember is priced at $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Ember is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 16.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.