DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Overall
56
vs
Overall
45

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is clearly better. It wins 34 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. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 spends 1.2× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
5626.0s
5.3K, 91% thinking4.2K, 92% thinking
451m 21s
Agents
5826.7s
3.3K, 71% thinking2.2K, 86% thinking
381m 19s
Structured Extraction
8117.2s
4.2K, 93% thinking2.6K, 91% thinking
6238.0s
Coding
4840.8s
9.4K, 95% thinking9.9K, 97% thinking
242m 40s
Grounded Answers
7119.8s
4.4K, 91% thinking2.6K, 89% thinking
6242.1s
Instruction Following
7625.6s
5.5K, 91% thinking4.8K, 90% thinking
641m 2s
Business Logic
6726.6s
6.6K, 97% thinking4.4K, 96% thinking
4356.4s
Security & permissions
4826.6s
4.7K, 87% thinking3.8K, 88% thinking
662m 6s
Diagnosis & investigation
020.2s
3.2K, 74% 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
243 tok/s (better)
66 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
$0.75
$0.33 (better)
Cost per case
$0.0049
$0.0021 (better)
Time per case
26.0s (better)
1m 21s
Quantization
—
BF16
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

1 lead change

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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017MiMo-V2.6-Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run5645

Every test case

153 test cases

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

34 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101715 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash104 tied