MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Overall
48
vs
Overall
32

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is clearly better. It wins 58 of the 81 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 1.6× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
482m 13s
5.9K, 89% thinking4K, 81% thinking
3258.5s
Agents
474m 48s
8.7K, 84% thinking4.2K, 76% thinking
491m 25s
Structured Extraction
601m 26s
3.4K, 87% thinking3K, 90% thinking
3336.9s
Coding
242m 58s
10.7K, 95% thinking5.8K, 61% thinking
471m 21s
Grounded Answers
621m 9s
3.2K, 89% thinking3.1K, 90% thinking
2641.4s
Instruction Following
591m 23s
4.5K, 86% thinking5K, 89% thinking
371m 4s
Business Logic
571m 52s
7.1K, 92% thinking3.9K, 91% thinking
1746.8s
Security & permissions
711m 41s
3.6K, 86% thinking3.2K, 83% thinking
5054.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
02m 54s
6.2K, 86% thinking3.3K, 73% thinking
058.4s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
55 tok/s
77 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1.1M (better)
1M
Cost per run
$1.80
$0.46 (better)
Cost per case
$0.012
$0.003 (better)
Time per case
2m 13s
58.5s (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-ProQwen3.8 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run4832

Every test case

153 test cases

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

58 won by MiMo-V2.6-Pro23 won by Qwen3.8 Flash72 tied