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

Overall
48
vs
Overall
35

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is clearly better. It wins 47 of the 75 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-Pro spends 3.1× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
482m 13s
5.9K, 89% thinking2.3K, 73% thinking
3521.3s
Agents
474m 48s
8.7K, 84% thinking3.1K, 71% thinking
3637.0s
Structured Extraction
601m 26s
3.4K, 87% thinking1.1K, 74% thinking
487.96s
Coding
242m 58s
10.7K, 95% thinking4.6K, 66% thinking
5840.6s
Grounded Answers
621m 9s
3.2K, 89% thinking1.2K, 71% thinking
339.75s
Instruction Following
591m 23s
4.5K, 86% thinking1.7K, 70% thinking
5314.7s
Business Logic
571m 52s
7.1K, 92% thinking3.5K, 94% thinking
2425.9s
Security & permissions
711m 41s
3.6K, 86% thinking1.3K, 60% thinking
3012.7s
Diagnosis & investigation
02m 54s
6.2K, 86% 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
55 tok/s
135 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1.1M (better)
1M
Cost per run
$1.80
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.012
Not measured
Time per case
2m 13s
21.3s (better)
Quantization
BF16
—
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

7 lead changes

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

MiMo-V2.6-ProMiniMax M3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run4835

Every test case

153 test cases

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

47 won by MiMo-V2.6-Pro28 won by MiniMax M3.1 Flash78 tied