MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Spark X2.6 4B

Overall
45
vs
Overall
15

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is clearly better. It wins 62 of the 68 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. Spark X2.6 4B spends 1.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
451m 21s
4.2K, 92% thinking8.2K, 84% thinking
151m 3s
Agents
381m 19s
2.2K, 86% thinking11.5K, 97% thinking
141m 32s
Structured Extraction
6238.0s
2.6K, 91% thinking5.3K, 78% thinking
1039.5s
Coding
242m 40s
9.9K, 97% thinking9.1K, 48% thinking
41m 8s
Grounded Answers
6242.1s
2.6K, 89% thinking6.6K, 86% thinking
1050.2s
Instruction Following
641m 2s
4.8K, 90% thinking11.9K, 90% thinking
371m 29s
Business Logic
4356.4s
4.4K, 96% thinking4.9K, 86% thinking
1036.3s
Security & permissions
662m 6s
3.8K, 88% thinking7K, 94% thinking
3154.3s
Diagnosis & investigation
01m 33s
1.5K, 83% thinking11.6K, 98% thinking
01m 30s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
66 tok/s
136 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
RTX 5090, 32 GB
Memory at 32K
—
9.4 GB
Context
1.1M (better)
605K
Cost per run
$0.33 (better)
$1.61 est.
Cost per case
$0.0021 (better)
$0.011 est.
Time per case
1m 21s
1m 3s (better)
Quantization
BF16
BF16
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

The race

No lead changes

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

MiMo-V2.6-FlashSpark X2.6 4B
0255075100501001504515

Every test case

153 test cases

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

62 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash6 won by Spark X2.6 4B85 tied