MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash and Muse Wonder side-by-side.
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder 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.
Models in this comparison
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder on Vision Evals
Muse Wonder scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Muse Wonder leads 85.2% to 33.1%.
Overall, MiMo V2.6 Flash averages 49.2% (#54 of 62) against 78.8% (#8 of 62) for Muse Wonder.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is cheaper ($0.0003 vs $0.034 per sample), while Muse Wonder is faster (11.7s vs 16.3s per sample).
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder Comparison Table
Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 13, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Flash | Muse Wonder |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | undisclosed |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.140 | $4.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.280 | $20.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Supported |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Supported |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Supported |
| 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% | 78.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0003 | $0.034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 16.34s | 11.68s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 | 65.1% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.5 to 66.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.2 to 66.5 |
| Counting (low) | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 | 76.6% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.7 to 78.4 |
| Counting (high) | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 | 92.7% ±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% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 49.7% | 74.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 50.4% | 76.0% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 | 85.2% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.8 to 85.4 |
| Reasoning (high) | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 | 83.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 84.1 |
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Muse Wonder: 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.
Muse Wonder is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta, released on October 12, 2026 as the first step past the Muse Spark line on Meta's scaling ladder. It launched together with Muse Wonder Full, a larger configuration that is available only through Muse Code subscription plans, while Muse Wonder itself is served through the Meta Model API under the identifier muse-wonder-1.0. The model accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents as input and returns text, with a context window of 1,048,576 tokens and graded reasoning effort settings. Meta trained both models at its Prometheus data center on larger base models than Muse Spark 1.3, and attributes their gains on unfamiliar tasks to post-training that transfers more effectively from a stronger base.
Meta positions Muse Wonder for long-running personal and professional agents: it plans multi-step work, delegates to sub-agents, calls tools in parallel, recovers from errors, and operates browsers and desktop or mobile applications. Two training objectives shape this behaviour. Active Memory carries goals, constraints, and earlier decisions across conversations and retrieves the details relevant to the current step, and Active Focus keeps the model trying alternative approaches when a task gets difficult while asking for clarification before important actions. Visual inputs such as screenshots, charts, and video feed the same reasoning loop, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for grounding queries. Meta's model card lists visual and spatial reasoning, especially 3D tasks, as a known limitation and recommends validating performance for applications that depend on precise spatial understanding.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Wonder performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 78.8% (#8 of 62) against 49.2% (#54 of 62) 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 Wonder leads with 85.2% 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 $0.034. MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output; Muse Wonder is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Muse Wonder is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 11.7s per inference against 16.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.