DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Full profiles: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (DeepSeek) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (Xiaomi): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 8 sources
As of 25 Oct 2026, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 64.0, inside the ±5.7 margin of error) and cost about the same, so speed decides it: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) streams 3.6× faster. Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for coding (70 vs 62); pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro for knowledge (65 vs 57).
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 benchmarks max DeepSeek
MiMo-V2.6-Pro benchmarks XiaomiOpen in the comparison toolWhich to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | 70 vs 62 category score; Arena WebDev 1665 vs 1625 | High |
| Agents & tool use | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | 64 vs 59 category score; CWE-Bench (AA) 69.2% vs 63.3% | Medium |
| Maths | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 66 vs 62 category score | Medium |
| Reasoning | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 79 vs 71 category score; CritPt 26.6% vs 24.0% | High |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 65 vs 57 category score; AA-Omniscience 8.4 vs 4.7 | High |
| Long documents | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 68 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR 86.3% vs 82.7% | Medium |
| Images and other media | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | 64 vs 60 category score | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro has an Arena rating (67 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Either | $0.525 vs $0.548 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.023 vs $0.030 | – |
| Fastest first answer | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | 11.4 s (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)) vs 39.2 s (MiMo-V2.6-Pro) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 64.0, within the ±5.7 margin).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, multimodal.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is stronger in knowledge, long context, maths, reasoning, human preference.
- They cost about the same ($0.525 per 1M blended).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) streams 3.6× faster (195 vs 55 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Xiaomi |
| Released | 17 Oct 2026 | 21 Sept 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,048,576 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $0.300 / $1.20 / $0.0060 | $0.440 / $0.870 / $0.0036 |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 70.6 | 78.7 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Coding | 69.9 | 61.5 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
| Agents & tools | 63.5 | 58.6 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
| Maths | 61.8 | 66.0 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Knowledge | 57.1 | 65.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Human preference | – | 67.1 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 63.7 | 59.8 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
| Long context | 66.4 | 68.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Composite | 80.0 | 69.8 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
Where sources disagree
Across the 34 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 17, MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 17. Independent sources split: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads on Vals Index; MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
| Overall index | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 64.0 | 64.0 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 45.1 | 46.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Vals Index | 61.3 | 57.8 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $0.525 | $0.548 |
| Input / output per 1M | $0.300 / $1.20 | $0.440 / $0.870 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.0060 | $0.0036 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0005 | $0.0004 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.0043 | $0.0058 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.0036 | $0.0039 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.023 | $0.030 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0008 | $0.0011 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $0.262 | $0.133 |
| Output speed | 195 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 11.4 s | 39.2 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 13.9 s | 48.3 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) cost $0.262 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro $0.133, because DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) used about 2.1× as many tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) scores 64.0 and takes 11 s to its first answer token. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 64.0 and takes 39 s to its first answer token. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
83 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 64.0 | 64.0 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 63.5 | 58.6 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 69.9 | 61.5 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | 80.0 | 69.8 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 57.1 | 65.3 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 68.3 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 61.8 | 66.0 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 63.7 | 59.8 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 70.6 | 78.7 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 67.1 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $0.525 | $0.548 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 195 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 11.4 s | 39.2 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 93.2% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1504 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 89.1%† | 79.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.3% | 49.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 93.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 78.1% | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 24.0% | 26.6% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 15.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 46.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 49.0% | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 60.9% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1538 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1665 | 1625 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 96.0%† | 81.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 55.9% | 60.9% |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 39.3% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 44.2% | 43.0% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 67.5% | 48.8% |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | – | 0.5% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | – | 41.3% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 87.7% | 85.2% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 1158.1 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 33.8% | 34.9% |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 43.7% | 45.4% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 54.4% |
Show all 83 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agents & tools | |||
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 3.3 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 50.9%† | 47.5% |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 76.0%† | 88.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 67.8% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 62.3% | 59.1% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 37.5% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 72.9% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 57.0% | 57.3% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 62.9% | 64.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 14.2% | 13.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 9.2% | 10.8% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 45.2% | 47.1% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 3.0% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 44.4% | 32.4% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 31.8% | 31.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 2.9% |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 66.6% | 58.6% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 17.2% | 19.2% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1570 | 1512 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 12.9% | 5.7% |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 69.2% | 63.3% |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 24.9% | 26.2% |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 76.3% | 78.6% |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 71.2% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 46.3% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 99.4% | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 70.0% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1489 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 42.5% | – |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 79.5%† | 72.3% |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 79.5%† | 76.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | Artificial Analysis | 4.7 | 8.4 |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 61.8% | 62.9% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 69.2% | 67.3% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 45.0% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 88.3% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 68.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 42.9% | 34.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 33.3% | 59.4% |
| Instruction following | |||
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1471 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1446 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1457 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1494 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1263 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 83.4%† | 78.5% |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 80.6% | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | – | 45.0% |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 983 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR | Artificial Analysis | 82.7% | 86.3% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 26.7% | 12.8% |
| Composite | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 79.2%† | 74.9% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 45.1 | 46.3 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 61.3 | 57.8 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 60.9% | 57.9% |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | 61.3%† | 57.8% |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | 56.8 | 56.1 |
| Metadata | |||
| AA Openness Index | Artificial Analysis | 44.4 | 52.8 |
Data as of 2026-10-25. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 10 new results (MLCR, AA Cyber Index, CWE-Bench (AA)…).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 7 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): BenchLeader Index 63.1 → 63.9.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 11 new results (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, FrontierMath Tier 4…).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)); 2 score revisions.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 3 score revisions.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: BenchLeader Index 65.4 → 64.2.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 8 new results (LiveBench 2.0, LiveBench Long Agentic, LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning…); 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
Related comparisons
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Gemini 4 Argon
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder Full
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Gemini 4 Argon
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Muse Wonder Full
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Claude Fable 5.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6 Astra
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: questions
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 64.0, within the ±5.7 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-25, so check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro, and will that change?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper today: $0.525 against $0.548 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro for coding?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher in coding (70 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1665 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 against 1625 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro for agents and tool use?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher in agentic tasks (64 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average). On CWE-Bench (AA), the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 69.2% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 against 63.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- Which is better for long documents?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 66). Both accept 1,048,576 tokens of context.
- Which has lower latency?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) answers first: 11.4 s against 39.2 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
- Which is faster, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 streams faster: 195 against 55 output tokens per second.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- Across the 34 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 17, MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 17. Independent sources split: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads on Vals Index; MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
- When was DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 released?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 was released on 17 Oct 2026.