MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Muse Wonder (max) are level on quality (65.4 vs 66.3 on the BenchLeader Index), and MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 15× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Muse Wonder (max) are level on quality (65.4 vs 66.3).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, long context, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in knowledge, reasoning.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 15× cheaper ($0.548 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- Muse Wonder (max) streams 1.8× faster (85 vs 48 tokens per second).
Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro if
- long context is the priority (68 vs 66 on the category score)
- cost matters: $0.548 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- the wait for the first word matters: 45.5 s against 60.8 s to first answer
- you want to run it yourself: its weights are open
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 79 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 65 on the category score)
- you need fast output: 85 against 48 tokens per second
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 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 79.2 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 62.0 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 59.7 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 66.1 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 65.3 | 73.0 | Muse Wonder |
| Human preference | 67.7 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 60.1 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 68.4 | 65.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Composite | 81.6 | 78.2 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
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 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $0.548 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $0.440 / $0.870 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0004 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.0058 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.0039 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.030 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0011 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $0.133 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 48 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 45.5 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 55.9 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.4 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 59.7 | – |
| Coding score | 62.0 | – |
| Composite score | 81.6 | 78.2 |
| Human preference score | 67.7 | – |
| Knowledge score | 65.3 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 68.4 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 66.1 | – |
| Multimodal score | 60.1 | – |
| Reasoning score | 79.2 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.548 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 48 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 45.5 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| SciCode | 60.9% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | – |
| ProofBench | 70.0% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1480 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1539 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 3.5 | – |
| LiveBench | – | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 46.3 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 86.3% | 80.7% |
| AA-Omniscience | 8.4 | 25.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 49.4% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 60.9% | 60.3% |
| IOI | 39.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 67.8% | – |
| Vals Index | 55.2 | – |
| CritPt | 26.6% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 59.2% | 63.5% |
| Code Migration | 43.0% | – |
| CyberBench | 72.9% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | 62.9% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | 57.3% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 10.8% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | 47.1% | – |
| MedCode | 45.0% | – |
| MedScribe | 88.3% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | 15.3% | – |
| ProgramBench | 0.5% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench | 68.9% | – |
| SAGE | 45.0% | – |
| SREBench | 3.0% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | 64.9% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | 31.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | 2.9% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 85.2% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1483 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1448 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1474 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1456 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1495 | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1158.1 | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 34.9% | 52.0% |
| AutomationBench | 58.6% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 19.2% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 18.3% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 34.9% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 59.4% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1516 | 1659 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 45.4% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 5.7% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | 5606.6% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | 63.3% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | 26.2% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | 78.6% | – |
| AA-3D | 977 | – |
| AA Openness Index | 52.8 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Muse Wonder?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Muse Wonder (max) are level on quality (65.4 vs 66.3). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Muse Wonder (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Muse Wonder?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper: $0.548 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder streams faster: 85 against 48 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1.0M tokens of context.