Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI 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
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 6.0 points higher (43.9 vs 37.9) but costs 14× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $110; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 37.9, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash when 37.9 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 37.9 | −13.7% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 13.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $109.55 | −92.9% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 92.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 49.53s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.14 / $0.28 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 13.7% less intelligence, 92.9% 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-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019MiMo-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/ling-3-1-flash-1019/mimo-v2-6-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/mimo-v2-6-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill