Inkling 2 Small vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Full profiles: Inkling 2 Small (Thinking Machines) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (Xiaomi): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 7 sources
As of 6 Nov 2026, Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (57.4 vs 57.3 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±6.2 margin), and they cost about the same at $0.475 vs $0.544 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Inkling 2 Small for knowledge (55 vs 43), agents & tools (69 vs 58), and multimodal (64 vs 60); choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro for coding (59 vs 56) and long context (68 vs 67).
Key facts (as of 6 Nov 2026)
- Inkling 2 Small scores 57.4 on the BenchLeader Index and MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 57.3 (BenchLeader, 6 Nov 2026).
- Inkling 2 Small costs $0.475 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 6 Nov 2026).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs $0.544 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 6 Nov 2026).
- Of the 32 benchmarks both models have, Inkling 2 Small leads 16 (BenchLeader, 6 Nov 2026).
MiMo-V2.6-Pro benchmarks Which 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 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 59 vs 56 category score; FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) 24.0% vs 25.4% | Medium |
| Agents & tool use | Inkling 2 Small | 69 vs 58 category score; Analyst Agent (AA) 51.3% vs 37.5% | High |
| Reasoning | Inkling 2 Small | 53 vs 51 category score; HLE-Diamond (AA) 28.7% vs 15.2% | Medium |
| Knowledge | Inkling 2 Small | 55 vs 43 category score; AA-Omniscience v1.1 16.1 vs -4.5 | High |
| Long documents | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 68 vs 67 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 86.3% vs 83.3% | Medium |
| Images and other media | Inkling 2 Small | 64 vs 60 category score; SAGE 88.6% vs 84.5% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro has an Arena rating (67 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Inkling 2 Small | $0.475 vs $0.548 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.022 vs $0.030 | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (57.4 vs 57.3, within the ±6.2 margin).
- Inkling 2 Small is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge, multimodal, reasoning.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is stronger in coding, long context, composite, human preference, maths.
- Inkling 2 Small is 1.2× cheaper ($0.475 vs $0.548 per 1M blended).
At a glance
| Spec | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Thinking Machines | Xiaomi |
| Released | 5 Nov 2026 | 21 Sep 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,024,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Compared at | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $0.300 / $1.00 / – | $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 | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 52.5 | 50.7 | Inkling 2 Small |
| Coding | 56.3 | 59.4 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Agents & tools | 69.3 | 58.4 | Inkling 2 Small |
| Maths | – | 65.9 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 54.9 | 43.0 | Inkling 2 Small |
| Human preference | – | 67.0 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 64.1 | 59.8 | Inkling 2 Small |
| Long context | 66.5 | 68.1 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Composite | – | 53.0 | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Maths, Instruction following, Human preference.
Where sources disagree
Across the 32 benchmarks both have, Inkling 2 Small leads 16, MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 13 and 3 are tied. Independent sources split: Inkling 2 Small leads on AA Intelligence Index v5.0; MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on Vals Index.
| Overall index | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 57.4 | 57.3 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 30.6 | 29.9 | Inkling 2 Small |
| Vals Index | 56.1 | 57.8 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $0.475 | $0.548 |
| Input / output per 1M | $0.300 / $1.00 | $0.440 / $0.870 |
| Cached input per 1M | – | $0.0036 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0004 | $0.0004 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.0042 | $0.0058 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.0033 | $0.0039 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.022 | $0.030 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0008 | $0.0011 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | – | $0.010 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $1.18 | $0.257 |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 150k | 121k |
| Of which reasoning | 88k | 86k |
| Time per task (AA Index) | 21 min | 46 min |
| Output speed | – | 41 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | – | 52.9 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 65.2 s |
Per token is not per task: an average task of Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index cost $1.18 on Inkling 2 Small and $0.257 on MiMo-V2.6-Pro, and Inkling 2 Small wrote 1.2× as many output tokens for the same work.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Inkling 2 Small scores 57.4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 57.3 and takes 53 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
86 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 | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 57.4 | 57.3 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 69.3 | 58.4 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 56.3 | 59.4 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 54.9 | 43.0 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.5 | 68.1 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 64.1 | 59.8 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 52.5 | 50.7 |
| Composite score | BenchLeader | – | 53.0 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 67.0 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 65.9 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $0.475 | $0.548 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | – | 41 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | – | 52.9 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,024,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1504 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 79.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 44.1% | 49.4% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 28.7% | 15.2% |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | – | 26.6% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 35.0% | 34.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 15.3% |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 60.9% |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1538 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1625 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 81.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.3% | 60.9% |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 39.3% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 43.0% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 48.8% |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 0.5% | 0.5% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 43.1% | 41.3% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 81.5% | 85.2% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 1158.1 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 13.1% | 34.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 81.3% | – |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 49.6† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 45.4% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 25.4% | 24.0% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 54.4% |
Show all 86 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agents & tools | |||
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 2.7 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | – | 35.2% |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | – | 77.3% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 67.8% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | – | 59.1% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1630 | 1689 |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 40.4% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 51.3% | 37.5% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 72.7% | 72.9% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 57.3% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | 67.5% | 64.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 21.7% | 13.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 10.8% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 46.6% | 47.1% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 1.9% | 3.0% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 38.9% | 32.4% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 12.6% | 31.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 2.9% | 2.9% |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 45.6% | 58.6% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 25.2% | 19.2% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | 46.8% | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1527 | 1512 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 5.7% | 5.7% |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 63.3% |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 26.2% |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 78.6% |
| Maths | |||
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 70.0% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1490 |
| Knowledge | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 72.3% |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | – | 76.7% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 16.1 | -4.5 |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 70.0% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 62.9% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 69.5% | 67.3% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 45.0% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 88.3% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 68.9% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 33.8% | 34.8% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 73.3% | 39.8% |
| Instruction following | |||
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1472 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1444 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1457 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1495 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1263 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | – | 78.5% |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 81.6% | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | 88.6% | 84.5% |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | 1020 | 1052 |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | 1021 | 983 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 83.3% | 86.3% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 12.8% |
| Composite | |||
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | – | 68.5% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 30.6 | 29.9 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 46.3 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 321.2 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 56.1 | 57.8 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 61.5% | 57.9% |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 57.8% |
| AA Cyber Index | Artificial Analysis | – | 56.1 |
| Metadata | |||
| AA Openness Index | Artificial Analysis | – | 52.8 |
Data as of 2026-11-06. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-09b2218cbd85 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-09b2218cbd85/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Inkling 2 Small: first results.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: BenchLeader Index 61.1 → 57.2.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; MiMo-V2.6-Pro cost per task moved from $0.13/M to $0.26/M (93% up).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: BenchLeader Index 61.7 → 61.1.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 3 score revisions.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 7 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 1 score revision.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 3 score revisions.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: BenchLeader Index 62.4 → 61.7.
Related comparisons
- Inkling 2 Small vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
- Inkling 2 Small vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
- Inkling 2 Small vs Inkling Small
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs GLM 5.3
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Inkling 2 Small vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: questions
- Is Inkling 2 Small better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Pro are neck and neck on quality (57.4 vs 57.3, within the ±6.2 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 6 Nov 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Inkling 2 Small vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Inkling 2 Small is cheaper today: $0.475 against $0.544 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in coding (59 vs 56 on the category index, where 50 is average). On FrontierCode 2.0 (AA), the top shared coding benchmark, it is 25.4% for Inkling 2 Small against 24.0% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- Is Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for agents and tool use?
- Inkling 2 Small scores higher in agentic tasks (69 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is better for long documents?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on long-context benchmarks (68 vs 67). Both take about 1M tokens: Inkling 2 Small 1,024,000, MiMo-V2.6-Pro 1,048,576.
More questions (2)
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Inkling 2 Small vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
- Across the 32 benchmarks both have, Inkling 2 Small leads 16, MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 13 and 3 are tied. Independent sources split: Inkling 2 Small leads on AA Intelligence Index v5.0; MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on Vals Index.
- When was Inkling 2 Small released?
- Inkling 2 Small was released on 5 Nov 2026.