MAI-Code-1-Flash vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed vs Nex-N2-Pro
Nex-N2-Pro comes out ahead, 57 to 45 and 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
MicrosoftMAI-Code-1-Flash
41/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context256K
XiaomiMiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed
45/100- ECI—
- Price$1.30 / $2.61
- Context1.05M
- Our pick
Nex AGI
Nex-N2-Pro
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $2.50
- Context262K
Nex-N2-Pro is our pick
Nex-N2-Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed (45) and MAI-Code-1-Flash (41). It leads on inputs & features. MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed wins on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 priceNex-N2-ProNex-N2-Pro $1.00 · MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed $1.63 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · MAI-Code-1-Flash unpriced
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeedMiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed 1,048,576 · Nex-N2-Pro 262,144 · MAI-Code-1-Flash 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsNex-N2-ProMAI-Code-1-Flash: Text · MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed: Text · Nex-N2-Pro: Text, Images
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed and Nex-N2-ProPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MAI-Code-1-Flash | MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed | Nex-N2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 45 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 36 | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 41/100 | 45/100 | 57/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | MAI-Code-1-FlashMicrosoft | MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeedXiaomi | Nex-N2-ProNex AGI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | $1.30 | $0.50 (best) |
| Output | — | $2.61 | $2.50 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.011 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.63 | $1.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Official Xiaomi API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.5-pro-ultraspeed | — |
| API providers | — | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Jun 2, 2026 | Jun 8, 2026 | Jun 2, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Dec 2025 | Dec 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- MAI-Code-1-Flash—
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed$18.27
- Nex-N2-Pro$10.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MAI-Code-1-Flash, MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed or Nex-N2-Pro?
Nex-N2-Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed (45) and MAI-Code-1-Flash (41). It leads on inputs & features. MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed wins on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, MAI-Code-1-Flash, MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed or Nex-N2-Pro?
Nex-N2-Pro is cheaper at $0.50 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed costs $1.30 input / $2.61 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.00 per million tokens for Nex-N2-Pro versus $1.63 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed (1.6× as much). MAI-Code-1-Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. MAI-Code-1-Flash has not been scored yet, MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed has not been scored yet and Nex-N2-Pro has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MAI-Code-1-Flash, MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed and Nex-N2-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-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Nex-N2-Pro and 256,000 for MAI-Code-1-Flash. Maximum output per response: MAI-Code-1-Flash up to 128,000, MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed up to 131,072, Nex-N2-Pro up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MAI-Code-1-Flash accepts text; MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed accepts text; Nex-N2-Pro accepts text and images. Nex-N2-Pro handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed and Nex-N2-Pro publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; MAI-Code-1-Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed is the newest, released Jun 8, 2026. MAI-Code-1-Flash came out Jun 2, 2026; Nex-N2-Pro came out Jun 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MAI-Code-1-Flash Dec 2025, MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed Dec 2024.
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.
