Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Overall
45
vs
Overall
45

Too close to call. Each wins 23 of the 46 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. Ling 3.1 Flash spends 1.5× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
451m 16s
7.9K, 73% thinking4.2K, 92% thinking
451m 21s
Agents
4155.9s
4.5K, 66% thinking2.2K, 86% thinking
381m 19s
Structured Extraction
711m 11s
8.1K, 69% thinking2.6K, 91% thinking
6238.0s
Coding
241m 42s
11.3K, 89% thinking9.9K, 97% thinking
242m 40s
Grounded Answers
5258.9s
6.7K, 74% thinking2.6K, 89% thinking
6242.1s
Instruction Following
761m 55s
11.4K, 77% thinking4.8K, 90% thinking
641m 2s
Business Logic
381m 22s
9.7K, 56% thinking4.4K, 96% thinking
4356.4s
Security & permissions
5456.1s
5.2K, 74% thinking3.8K, 88% thinking
662m 6s
Diagnosis & investigation
042.1s
3.2K, 72% 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
112 tok/s (better)
66 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
256K
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
$0.33
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.0021
Time per case
1m 16s (better)
1m 21s
Quantization
—
BF16
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

8 lead changes

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

Ling 3.1 FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run4545

Every test case

153 test cases

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

23 won by Ling 3.1 Flash23 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash107 tied