Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs MiMo-V2.5
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI 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
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 22.1 points higher (43.9 vs 21.8) but costs 25× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $61.9; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | MiMo-V2.5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 21.8 | −50.3% MiMo-V2.5 is 50.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $61.93 | −96.0% MiMo-V2.5 is 96.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 53.92s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.13 / $0.27 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
MiMo-V2.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 50.3% less intelligence, 96.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- MiMo-V2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019MiMo-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/ling-3-1-flash-1019/mimo-v2-5-0424 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/mimo-v2-5-0424?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill