Roboflow

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Mistral Large 4

Compare MiMo V2.6 Pro and Mistral Large 4 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Mistral Large 4 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
MiMo V2.6 Pro
Run to compare this model.
MistralMistral Large 4
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Mistral Large 4 on Vision Evals

Mistral Large 4 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Mistral Large 4 leads 59.3% to 42.0%.

Overall, MiMo V2.6 Pro averages 62.5% (#51 of 61) against 68.5% (#36 of 61) for Mistral Large 4.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0018 per sample) and faster (8.5s vs 8.8s per sample).

MiMo V2.6 ProMistral Large 4

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Mistral Large 4 Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026

PropertyMiMo V2.6 ProMistral Large 4
OrganizationXiaomiMistral
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Oct 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters1.02T total, 42B active1.05T total, 49B active
LicenseMITCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.435$0.680
Output $/1M$0.870$2.09
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Phrase GroundingNot listedSupported
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
62.5%
68.5%
Avg cost / sample$0.0008$0.0018
Avg speed / sample8.47s8.78s
By task
Object Detection (low)
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
59.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0
$0.0028
Object Detection (high)
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
50.2%
±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0
$0.023
Counting (low)
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
54.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4
$0.0010
Counting (high)
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
63.1%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9
$0.0094
Identification (low)
76.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1
$0.0004
85.4%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0009
Identification (high)
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
85.4%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0044
OCR (low)
90.7%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9
$0.0008
92.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.8 to 93.3
$0.0016
OCR (high)
87.5%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6
$0.0048
87.1%
±4.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.6 to 90.4
$0.025
Data Extraction (low)
81.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4
$0.0005
80.1%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0.0010
Data Extraction (high)
80.4%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5
$0.0013
82.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5
$0.0033
Reasoning (low)
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
38.9%
±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1
$0.0013
Reasoning (high)
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026
57.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6
$0.013

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Mistral Large 4: Overview

MiMo V2.6 Pro

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.

Mistral Large 4

Mistral Large 4, nicknamed Le Chonk, is a natively multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Mistral that accepts interleaved text and image input and produces text output. It uses a granular MoE design with roughly 1.05 trillion total parameters and 49 billion active per token, reported as 52 billion when embeddings and output layers are counted, paired with a 1.6 billion parameter vision encoder and a context window of one million tokens. The model is trained from scratch on about 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's European data centers and supports more than 160 languages. It behaves as a hybrid instruct and reasoning system, with a reasoning effort setting that selects between direct answers and longer deliberation, alongside function calling and structured output for agentic workflows.

Image understanding is a focus of this generation, covering documents, charts, technical drawings and natural scenes, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for visual grounding queries. Reported grounding results include 42 percent on Dense200 and 73 percent on the DIOR-RSVG remote sensing benchmark. Mistral describes agentic vision workflows in which the model zooms into gigapixel satellite imagery or engineering drawings to verify details, and reports coding results such as 62 percent on DeepSWE. Figures published at preview time are preliminary because the reinforcement learning phase is still in progress.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Mistral Large 4 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.5% (#36 of 61) against 62.5% (#51 of 61) for MiMo V2.6 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Mistral Large 4 leads with 59.3% against 42.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.0018. MiMo V2.6 Pro is priced at $0.43 per 1M input tokens and $0.87 per 1M output; Mistral Large 4 is priced at $0.68 per 1M input tokens and $2.09 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

MiMo V2.6 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.5s per inference against 8.8s. 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.