Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Solar Mini 4
MiMo-V2.6-Flash comes out ahead, 80 to 64 and 55 on our weighted score.
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Flash
80/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
UpstageSolar Mini 4
64/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context524K
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is our pick
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Solar Mini 4 (64) and Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 priceMiMo-V2.6-Flash and Solar Mini 4MiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.175 · Solar Mini 4 $0.175 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash 1,048,576 · Solar Mini 4 524,288 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashMercury 2.5: Text · MiMo-V2.6-Flash: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Solar Mini 4: Text
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.6-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Solar Mini 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 82 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 90 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 61 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 80/100 | 64/100 |
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 | Mercury 2.5Inception | MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi | Solar Mini 4Upstage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.14 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.28 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | $0.02 | $0.0028 (best) | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.175 (best) | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Official Xiaomi API | Official Upstage API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 524,288 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | mimo-v2.6-flash | solar-mini4 |
| API providers | 6 | 23 (best) | 4 |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Sep 22, 2026 | Sep 22, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | Feb 2026 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$1.96
- Solar Mini 4$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Solar Mini 4?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Solar Mini 4 (64) and Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, Mercury 2.5, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Solar Mini 4?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Solar Mini 4 costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price); Mercury 2.5 costs $0.20 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for MiMo-V2.6-Flash versus $0.175 for Solar Mini 4 (1× as much) and $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet, MiMo-V2.6-Flash has not been scored yet and Solar Mini 4 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5, MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Solar Mini 4 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 524,288 for Solar Mini 4 and 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072, Solar Mini 4 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts text, images, audio and video; Solar Mini 4 accepts text. MiMo-V2.6-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 and Solar Mini 4 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Solar Mini 4 came out Sep 22, 2026; Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Solar Mini 4 Feb 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.
