MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
MiMo-V2.6-Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 70 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Flash
79/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is our pick
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70). It leads on price 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-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.175 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 70/100 |
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 | MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.14 (best) | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.28 (best) | $0.50 |
| Cached input | $0.0028 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 (best) | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Xiaomi API | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | mimo-v2.6-flash | — |
| API providers | 18 (best) | 5 |
| Released | Sep 22, 2026 | Aug 27, 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.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$1.96
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70). It leads on price 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, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Qwen3.8 Flash Next costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). 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 $0.275 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash Next yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both 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 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next. Maximum output per response: MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts text, images, audio and video; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. MiMo-V2.6-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (qwen-community-1.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Qwen3.8 Flash Next came out Aug 27, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Viv FastThree-way comparison
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Viv FastVivgrid
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Seed CharacterByteDance Seed
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs MiniCPM5-2BOpenBMB
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
