Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash comes out ahead, 80 to 70 and 66 on our weighted score, though Gemma 4 12B IT is 29% cheaper per token.
GoogleGemma 4 12B IT
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.275
- Context262K
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Flash
80/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
66/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context262K
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is our pick
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Gemma 4 12B IT (70) and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (66). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Gemma 4 12B IT wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGemma 4 12B ITGemma 4 12B IT $0.125 · MiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.175 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash 1,048,576 · Gemma 4 12B IT 262,144 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashGemma 4 12B IT: Text, Images · MiMo-V2.6-Flash: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 4 12B IT | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ornith 1.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 82 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 90 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 70/100 | 80/100 | 66/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle | MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi | Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.14 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.275 (best) | $0.28 | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.0028 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 (best) | $0.175 | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Official Xiaomi API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | — |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.6-flash | — |
| API providers | 2 | 23 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jun 9, 2026 | Sep 22, 2026 | Aug 18, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemma 4 12B IT$1.30
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$1.96
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 4 12B IT, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Ornith 1.5 35B A3B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Gemma 4 12B IT (70) and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (66). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Gemma 4 12B IT wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 12B IT, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Ornith 1.5 35B A3B?
Gemma 4 12B IT is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.275 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price); Ornith 1.5 35B A3B costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.125 per million tokens for Gemma 4 12B IT versus $0.175 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (1.4× as much) and $0.175 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Gemma 4 12B IT has not been scored yet, MiMo-V2.6-Flash has not been scored yet and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 12B IT, MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Ornith 1.5 35B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Gemma 4 12B IT and 262,144 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 12B IT up to 32,768, MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 4 12B IT accepts text and images; MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts text, images, audio and video; Ornith 1.5 35B A3B accepts text and images. MiMo-V2.6-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B came out Aug 18, 2026; Gemma 4 12B IT came out Jun 9, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
