Ling 3.1 Flash vs LongCat-2.5-Preview vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro comes out ahead, 69 to 60 and 50 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 17% cheaper per token.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context262K
Meituan (LongCat)LongCat-2.5-Preview
60/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context1M
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Pro
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.435 / $0.87
- Context1.05M
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is our pick
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against LongCat-2.5-Preview (60) and Ling 3.1 Flash (50). It leads on inputs & features. Ling 3.1 Flash 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 priceLing 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash $0.45 · LongCat-2.5-Preview $0.525 · MiMo-V2.6-Pro $0.544 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-Pro 1,048,576 · LongCat-2.5-Preview 1,000,000 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-ProLing 3.1 Flash: Text · LongCat-2.5-Preview: Text, Images · MiMo-V2.6-Pro: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingLing 3.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-ProPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | LongCat-2.5-Preview | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 64 | 60 | 60 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 60 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 50/100 | 60/100 | 69/100 |
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 | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | LongCat-2.5-PreviewMeituan (LongCat) | MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 (best) | $0.30 (best) | $0.435 |
| Output | $0.90 | $1.20 | $0.87 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.006 | $0.0036 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | $0.525 | $0.544 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 5 providers | Official LongCat API | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | LongCat-2.5-Preview | mimo-v2.6-pro |
| API providers | 7 | 4 | 21 (best) |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Sep 25, 2026 | Sep 22, 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.
- Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
- LongCat-2.5-Preview$5.40
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro$6.09
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against LongCat-2.5-Preview (60) and Ling 3.1 Flash (50). It leads on inputs & features. Ling 3.1 Flash 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, Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). LongCat-2.5-Preview costs $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official LongCat API price); MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs $0.435 input / $0.87 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $0.525 for LongCat-2.5-Preview (1.2× as much) and $0.544 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet, LongCat-2.5-Preview has not been scored yet and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash, LongCat-2.5-Preview and MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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-Pro has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for LongCat-2.5-Preview and 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, LongCat-2.5-Preview up to 131,072, MiMo-V2.6-Pro up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; LongCat-2.5-Preview accepts text and images; MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.6-Pro handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; LongCat-2.5-Preview is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. LongCat-2.5-Preview came out Sep 25, 2026; MiMo-V2.6-Pro came out Sep 22, 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.
