Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or MiMo-V2.5 by Xiaomi? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 19.3 points higher (41.1 vs 21.8) but costs 16× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $61.9; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 21.8 | −47.0% MiMo-V2.5 is 47.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $61.93 | −93.9% MiMo-V2.5 is 93.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 41.73s | +205.5% MiMo-V2.5 is 205.5% slower |
| 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: 47.0% less intelligence, 93.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 205.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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 FlashMiMo-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/mimo-v2-5-0424 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/mimo-v2-5-0424?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill