Hy-MT2-30B-A3B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash comes out ahead, 80 to 66 and 44 on our weighted score, though Hy-MT2-30B-A3B is 26% cheaper per token.
TencentHy-MT2-30B-A3B
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.074 / $0.295
- Context8K
- 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 Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (66) and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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 priceHy-MT2-30B-A3BHy-MT2-30B-A3B $0.129 · 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 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashHy-MT2-30B-A3B: Text · 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 | Hy-MT2-30B-A3B | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ornith 1.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 88 | 82 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 90 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 44/100 | 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 | Hy-MT2-30B-A3BTencent | MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi | Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.074 (best) | $0.14 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.295 | $0.28 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.0028 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.129 (best) | $0.175 | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Xiaomi API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | — |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.6-flash | — |
| API providers | 3 | 23 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 21, 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.
- Hy-MT2-30B-A3B$1.33
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$1.96
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Hy-MT2-30B-A3B, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Ornith 1.5 35B A3B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (66) and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Ornith 1.5 35B A3B?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.074 input / $0.295 output per million tokens (median across 3 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 $0.129 per million tokens for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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 Hy-MT2-30B-A3B, 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. Note that Hy-MT2-30B-A3B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B and 8,192 for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B. Maximum output per response: Hy-MT2-30B-A3B up to 4,096, MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B accepts text; 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; Hy-MT2-30B-A3B came out May 21, 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.
