Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 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 scores 3.2 points higher (41.1 vs 37.9) but costs 9.3× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $110; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 37.9, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash when 37.9 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 37.9 | −7.8% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 7.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $109.55 | −89.2% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 89.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 49.53s | +262.6% MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 262.6% slower |
| 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: 7.8% less intelligence, 89.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 262.6% 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-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Ling 3.1 FlashMiMo-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/mimo-v2-6-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/mimo-v2-6-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill