MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Ember
Muse Ember and MiMo V2.6 Pro score 76.6% vs 50.3% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#16 and #58 of 67 models), so Muse Ember leads overall.
- Muse Ember wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (78.2% vs 35.1%).
- Muse Ember is cheaper: $0.0009 vs $0.0011 overall average cost per sample.
- Muse Ember is faster: 6.1s vs 9.5s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 Pro vs Muse Ember on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Ember Comparison Table
Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Pro | Muse Ember |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Meta |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Nov 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 1.02T total, 42B active | Unknown |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | free for commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.435 | $0.100 |
| Output $/1M | $0.870 | $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 | 50.3% | 76.6% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0011 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.45s | 6.08s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 | 63.8% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3 |
| Object Detection (high) | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 | 64.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5 |
| Counting (low) | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 | 79.7% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1 |
| Counting (high) | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 | 91.7% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8 |
| Identification (high) | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 | 90.6% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 |
| OCR (low) | 48.6% | 69.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 49.9% | 70.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 | 78.2% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5 |
| Reasoning (high) | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 | 81.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4 |
MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Ember: Overview
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.
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 50.3% (#58 of 67) 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 Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Muse Ember leads with 78.2% against 35.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Ember is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0011. MiMo V2.6 Pro is priced at $0.43 per 1M input tokens and $0.87 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 9.5s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.