Clover 35B A3B Preview vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Overall
30
vs
Overall
45

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is clearly better. It wins 39 of the 49 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. The time under each score is the average per test case, on the machine it ran on. Clover 35B A3B Preview spends 2.1× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
3035.1s
8.4K, 95% thinking4.2K, 92% thinking
451m 21s
Agents
2036.8s
9.6K, 91% thinking2.2K, 86% thinking
381m 19s
Structured Extraction
4327.5s
7.2K, 97% thinking2.6K, 91% thinking
6238.0s
Coding
101m 5s
12.2K, 100% thinking9.9K, 97% thinking
242m 40s
Grounded Answers
4821.0s
5.4K, 94% thinking2.6K, 89% thinking
6242.1s
Instruction Following
5332.8s
9.2K, 95% thinking4.8K, 90% thinking
641m 2s
Business Logic
1936.1s
9.8K, 99% thinking4.4K, 96% thinking
4356.4s
Security & permissions
4725.6s
5.8K, 92% thinking3.8K, 88% thinking
662m 6s
Diagnosis & investigation
037.0s
7K, 82% thinking1.5K, 83% thinking
01m 33s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
252 tok/s (better)
66 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
—
1.1M
Cost per run
Not measured
$0.33
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.0021
Time per case
35.1s (better)
1m 21s
Quantization
—
BF16
Harness
custom
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

Clover 35B A3B PreviewMiMo-V2.6-Flash
0255075100501001503045

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

10 won by Clover 35B A3B Preview39 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash104 tied