MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Too close to call on our weighted score (MiMo-V2.6-Flash 79, Qwen3.8 Flash 76). The right pick depends on what you value most.
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Flash
79/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.47
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (MiMo-V2.6-Flash 79/100, Qwen3.8 Flash 76/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: MiMo-V2.6-Flash on price and MiMo-V2.6-Flash for long inputs. 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 $0.23 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3.8 Flash 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Qwen3.8 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.6-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 80 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 76/100 |
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 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.14 (best) | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.28 (best) | $0.47 |
| Cached input | $0.0028 (best) | $0.016 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 (best) | $0.23 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Xiaomi API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 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 | Yeslow · medium · xhigh |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | mimo-v2.6-flash | qwen3.8-flash |
| API providers | 18 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Sep 22, 2026 | Aug 26, 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$2.44
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (MiMo-V2.6-Flash 79/100, Qwen3.8 Flash 76/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: MiMo-V2.6-Flash on price and MiMo-V2.6-Flash for long inputs. 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?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 input / $0.47 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $0.23 for Qwen3.8 Flash (1.3× 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 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 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 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8 Flash. Maximum output per response: MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 Flash 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 accepts text, images and video. 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; Qwen3.8 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Qwen3.8 Flash came out Aug 26, 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.
