Granite 4.2 3B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Which is better for the money: Granite 4.2 3B by IBM or MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 28.8 points higher (37.9 vs 9.1) but costs 7.3× as much to run the benchmark ($110 vs $14.9; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | Granite 4.2 3B | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 9.1 | 37.9 | +316.5% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 4.2× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.91 | $109.55 | +634.7% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 7.3× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 46.62s | 49.26s | +5.7% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 5.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.03 / $0.12 | $0.14 / $0.28 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B: 316.5% more intelligence, 634.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 5.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Granite 4.2 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Granite 4.2 3BMiMo-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/granite-4-2-3b/mimo-v2-6-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/granite-4-2-3b/mimo-v2-6-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill