MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Overall
45
vs
Overall
35

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is clearly better. It wins 38 of the 61 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. MiMo-V2.6-Flash spends 2.3× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
451m 21s
4.2K, 92% thinking2.3K, 73% thinking
3521.3s
Agents
381m 19s
2.2K, 86% thinking3.1K, 71% thinking
3637.0s
Structured Extraction
6238.0s
2.6K, 91% thinking1.1K, 74% thinking
487.96s
Coding
242m 40s
9.9K, 97% thinking4.6K, 66% thinking
5840.6s
Grounded Answers
6242.1s
2.6K, 89% thinking1.2K, 71% thinking
339.75s
Instruction Following
641m 2s
4.8K, 90% thinking1.7K, 70% thinking
5314.7s
Business Logic
4356.4s
4.4K, 96% thinking3.5K, 94% thinking
2425.9s
Security & permissions
662m 6s
3.8K, 88% thinking1.3K, 60% thinking
3012.7s
Diagnosis & investigation
01m 33s
1.5K, 83% thinking2.1K, 51% thinking
022.8s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
66 tok/s
135 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1.1M (better)
1M
Cost per run
$0.33
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0021
Not measured
Time per case
1m 21s
21.3s (better)
Quantization
BF16
—
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

4 lead changes

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

MiMo-V2.6-FlashMiniMax M3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run4535

Every test case

153 test cases

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

38 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash23 won by MiniMax M3.1 Flash92 tied