DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs MiMo-V2.5
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or MiMo-V2.5 by Xiaomi? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) scores 23.3 points higher (45.1 vs 21.8) but costs 7.2× as much to run the benchmark ($445 vs $61.9; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | MiMo-V2.5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 21.8 | −51.7% MiMo-V2.5 is 51.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $61.93 | −86.1% MiMo-V2.5 is 86.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.22s | 53.92s | +232.4% MiMo-V2.5 is 232.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.13 / $0.27 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
MiMo-V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 51.7% less intelligence, 86.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 232.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- MiMo-V2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)MiMo-V2.5Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/mimo-v2-5-0424 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/mimo-v2-5-0424?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill