Roboflow

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.

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

Score by taskMiMo V2.6 ProMuse Ember
Reasoning
35.1
78.2
Counting
50.0
79.7
Object Detection
42.0
63.8
OCR
48.6
69.5
Identification
76.0
91.7

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Ember Comparison Table

Evals updated November 10, 2026Pricing updated November 10, 2026

PropertyMiMo V2.6 ProMuse Ember
OrganizationXiaomiMeta
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Nov 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters1.02T total, 42B activeUnknown
LicenseMITProprietary
Commercial usefree for commercial usecommercial use per vendor terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.435$0.100
Output $/1M$0.870$0.500
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoSupported
ClassificationDemoSupported
Object DetectionDemoSupported
OCRDemoSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoSupported
Both support 5 more tasks
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 / sample9.45s6.08s
By task
Object Detection (low)
42.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1
$0.0014
63.8%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.3 to 64.3
$0.0011
Object Detection (high)
46.7%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3
$0.0030
64.0%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 64.5
$0.0017
Counting (low)
50.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7
$0.0005
79.7%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 81.1
$0.0006
Counting (high)
59.0%
±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5
$0.0016
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0011
Identification (low)
76.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1
$0.0004
91.7%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 93.8
$0.0004
Identification (high)
78.1%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3
$0.0012
90.6%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0007
OCR (low)
48.6%
$0.0012
69.5%
$0.0010
by category
Single value
37.0%
Transcription
68.2%
Structured JSON
67.7%
Text localization
18.7%
Single value
61.7%
Transcription
95.5%
Structured JSON
85.1%
Text localization
35.3%
OCR (high)
49.9%
$0.0034
70.5%
$0.0017
by category
Single value
40.4%
Transcription
59.9%
Structured JSON
70.2%
Text localization
16.8%
Single value
63.0%
Transcription
90.2%
Structured JSON
87.2%
Text localization
35.9%
Reasoning (low)
35.1%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8
$0.0005
78.2%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.8 to 79.5
$0.0006
Reasoning (high)
55.9%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9
$0.0026
81.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.1 to 83.4
$0.0013

MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Muse Ember: 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.

Muse Ember

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.