DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) scores 7.2 points higher (45.1 vs 37.9) but costs 4.1× as much to run the benchmark ($445 vs $110; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when you need intelligence above 37.9, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash when 37.9 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 37.9 | −16.0% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 16.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $109.55 | −75.4% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 75.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 14.55s | 49.53s | +240.4% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 240.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.14 / $0.28 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 16.0% less intelligence, 75.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 240.4% 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-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)MiMo-V2.6-FlashToday'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-v2-6-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/mimo-v2-6-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill