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

Overall
56
vs
Overall
48

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is clearly better. It wins 34 of the 53 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. Both models spend about the same on thinking per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
5626.0s
5.3K, 91% thinking5.9K, 89% thinking
482m 13s
Agents
5826.7s
3.3K, 71% thinking8.7K, 84% thinking
474m 48s
Structured Extraction
8117.2s
4.2K, 93% thinking3.4K, 87% thinking
601m 26s
Coding
4840.8s
9.4K, 95% thinking10.7K, 95% thinking
242m 58s
Grounded Answers
7119.8s
4.4K, 91% thinking3.2K, 89% thinking
621m 9s
Instruction Following
7625.6s
5.5K, 91% thinking4.5K, 86% thinking
591m 23s
Business Logic
6726.6s
6.6K, 97% thinking7.1K, 92% thinking
571m 52s
Security & permissions
4826.6s
4.7K, 87% thinking3.6K, 86% thinking
711m 41s
Diagnosis & investigation
020.2s
3.2K, 74% thinking6.2K, 86% thinking
02m 54s

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)
55 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
$0.75 (better)
$1.80
Cost per case
$0.0049 (better)
$0.012
Time per case
26.0s (better)
2m 13s
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-Pro
025507510050100150Perfect run5648

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 101719 won by MiMo-V2.6-Pro100 tied