$ diff mimo-v2-6-pro muse-spark-1-3
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Muse Spark 1.3
Values come from MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Muse Spark 1.3, 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
- closed
- $/M in
- $1.25
- $/M out
- $4.25
What actually differs
- Context window
- Identical — both accept 1M tokens, so context length is not a reason to pick either.
- Input price
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.435/M against $1.25/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
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.87/M against $4.25/M — 4.9× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Weights
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro publishes weights (MIT (open weights)); Muse Spark 1.3 is API-only. That decides self-hosting, air-gapped deployment and fine-tuning before any capability question does.
- Recency
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro shipped 20 days after Muse Spark 1.3 (2026-09-22 vs 2026-09-02).
Full spec
| Attribute | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Xiaomi | Meta AI |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-02 |
| 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 | Standard $1.25/M input · $4.25/M output · Contributor ≈$0.10/M input · ≈$0.20/M output |
| License | MIT (open weights) | proprietary |
| Availability | Hugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routers | Muse Code, Meta Model API |