AI Trend Notifier
EN

$ diff mimo-v2-6-pro minimax-m3

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs MiniMax M3

Values come from MiMo-V2.6-Pro and MiniMax M3, 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.

What actually differs

Context window
Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
Input price
MiniMax M3 at $0.3/M against $0.435/M — 1.4× 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
MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.87/M against $1.2/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), MiniMax M3 under Open-weight (HuggingFace). Check the licences rather than assuming they permit the same commercial use.
Recency
MiMo-V2.6-Pro shipped 113 days after MiniMax M3 (2026-09-22 vs 2026-06-01).

Full spec

AttributeMiMo-V2.6-ProMiniMax M3
DeveloperXiaomiMiniMax
Released2026-09-222026-06-01
Context window1M tokens1,000,000 tokens (1M); min. 512K guaranteed
Pricingno vendor list price — weights are MIT and self-hostable; routed providers reported at $0.435/M input · $0.87/M output$0.30/M input · $1.20/M output ($0.06/M cached input) — OpenRouter catalogue, read 2026-07-28
LicenseMIT (open weights)Open-weight (HuggingFace)
AvailabilityHugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routersAPI (global, including English) + open-weight on HuggingFace

How these pages are produced

← all comparisons