$ diff mimo-v2-6-pro deepseek-v4-1-flash
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs DeepSeek V4.1-Flash
Values come from MiMo-V2.6-Pro and DeepSeek V4.1-Flash, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Pro
- context
- 1M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.435
- $/M out
- $0.87
- context
- 1M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.15
- $/M out
- $0.6
What actually differs
- Context window
- Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
- Input price
- DeepSeek V4.1-Flash at $0.15/M against $0.435/M — 2.9× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- DeepSeek V4.1-Flash at $0.6/M against $0.87/M — 1.4× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Weights
- Both publish weights — MiMo-V2.6-Pro under MIT (open weights), DeepSeek V4.1-Flash under MIT (open-weight). Check the licences rather than assuming they permit the same commercial use.
- Recency
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro shipped 12 days after DeepSeek V4.1-Flash (2026-09-22 vs 2026-09-10).
Full spec
| Attribute | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | DeepSeek V4.1-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Xiaomi | DeepSeek |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-10 |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 1,000,000 |
| Pricing | no vendor list price — weights are MIT and self-hostable; routed providers reported at $0.435/M input · $0.87/M output | $0.15/M input (cache miss) · $0.003/M input (cache hit) · $0.60/M output, off-peak; peak rates double — see Pricing |
| License | MIT (open weights) | MIT (open-weight) |
| Availability | Hugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routers | DeepSeek API, Hugging Face (`deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash`) |