Flint vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Overall
21
vs
Overall
48

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is clearly better. It wins 52 of the 58 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. Flint spends 1.9× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
211m 17s
10.9K, 90% thinking5.9K, 89% thinking
482m 13s
Agents
1447.7s
4.8K, 85% thinking8.7K, 84% thinking
474m 48s
Structured Extraction
291m 17s
10.9K, 87% thinking3.4K, 87% thinking
601m 26s
Coding
141m 19s
12K, 98% thinking10.7K, 95% thinking
242m 58s
Grounded Answers
2957.7s
8.7K, 93% thinking3.2K, 89% thinking
621m 9s
Instruction Following
352m 28s
22.2K, 93% thinking4.5K, 86% thinking
591m 23s
Business Logic
101m 20s
11.7K, 78% thinking7.1K, 92% thinking
571m 52s
Security & permissions
3552.6s
7.1K, 90% thinking3.6K, 86% thinking
711m 41s
Diagnosis & investigation
057.0s
7.3K, 99% 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
149 tok/s (better)
55 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
256K
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
$1.80
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.012
Time per case
1m 17s (better)
2m 13s
Quantization
BF16
BF16
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

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

FlintMiMo-V2.6-Pro
0255075100501001502148

Every test case

153 test cases

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

6 won by Flint52 won by MiMo-V2.6-Pro95 tied