Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed vs Qwen 3.8 Max Prime
Ling 3.1 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 44 and 42 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
44/100- ECI—
- Price$4.35 / $8.70
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen 3.8 Max Prime
42/100- ECI—
- Price$4.00 / $12.00
- Context1M
Ling 3.1 Flash is our pick
Ling 3.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed (44) and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime (42). It leads 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 $0.111 · MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed $5.44 · Qwen 3.8 Max Prime $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed 1,048,576 · Qwen 3.8 Max Prime 1,000,000 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedLing 3.1 Flash: Text · MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Qwen 3.8 Max Prime: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed | Qwen 3.8 Max Prime |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 15 | 13 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 44/100 | 42/100 |
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 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedXiaomi | Qwen 3.8 Max PrimeAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $4.35 | $4.00 |
| Output | $0.22 (best) | $8.70 | $12.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.036 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | $5.44 | $6.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Xiaomi API | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| 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 | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.6-pro-ultraspeed | — |
| API providers | 3 | 9 (best) | 4 |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Sep 21, 2026 | Sep 23, 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$1.19
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed$60.90
- Qwen 3.8 Max Prime$64.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash, MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed or Qwen 3.8 Max Prime?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed (44) and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime (42). It leads 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, MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed or Qwen 3.8 Max Prime?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed costs $4.35 input / $8.70 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price); Qwen 3.8 Max Prime costs $4.00 input / $12.00 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.111 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $5.44 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed (49× as much) and $6.00 for Qwen 3.8 Max Prime (54× 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, MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed has not been scored yet and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash, MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime 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-UltraSpeed has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen 3.8 Max Prime and 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed up to 131,072, Qwen 3.8 Max Prime up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed accepts text, images, audio and video; Qwen 3.8 Max Prime accepts text, images and video. MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. Qwen 3.8 Max Prime came out Sep 23, 2026; MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed came out Sep 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 Oct 4, 2026.
