MiniCPM5-2B vs Viv Fast vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Viv Fast comes out ahead, 75 to 70 and 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
OpenBMB
MiniCPM5-2B
53/100- ECI—
- Price$0.124 / $0.743
- Context131K
- Our pick
VivgridViv Fast
75/100- ECI—
- Price$0.13 / $0.40
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Viv Fast is our pick
Viv Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70) and MiniCPM5-2B (53). It leads on price and context window. Qwen3.8 Flash Next wins on inputs & features. 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 priceViv FastViv Fast $0.198 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 · MiniCPM5-2B $0.279 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextViv FastViv Fast 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 · MiniCPM5-2B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 Flash NextMiniCPM5-2B: Text · Viv Fast: Text, Images · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingMiniCPM5-2B and Qwen3.8 Flash NextPublishes downloadable weights (apache-2.0 and qwen-community-1.0)
| Measure | Weight | MiniCPM5-2B | Viv Fast | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 76 | 83 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 75/100 | 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 | MiniCPM5-2BOpenBMB | Viv FastVivgrid | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.124 (best) | $0.13 | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.743 | $0.40 (best) | $0.50 |
| Cached input | — | $0.05 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.279 | $0.198 (best) | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Vivgrid API | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Openapache-2.0 | Proprietary | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | — | viv-fast | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 | 5 (best) |
| Released | Sep 6, 2026 | Sep 21, 2026 | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Sep 2026 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- MiniCPM5-2B$2.73
- Viv Fast$2.10
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: MiniCPM5-2B, Viv Fast or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Viv Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Qwen3.8 Flash Next (70) and MiniCPM5-2B (53). It leads on price and context window. Qwen3.8 Flash Next wins on inputs & features. 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, MiniCPM5-2B, Viv Fast or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Viv Fast is cheaper at $0.13 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Vivgrid API price). Qwen3.8 Flash Next costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers); MiniCPM5-2B costs $0.124 input / $0.743 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.198 per million tokens for Viv Fast versus $0.275 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next (1.4× as much) and $0.279 for MiniCPM5-2B (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. MiniCPM5-2B has not been scored yet, Viv Fast 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 MiniCPM5-2B, Viv Fast and Qwen3.8 Flash Next 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?
Viv Fast has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next and 131,072 for MiniCPM5-2B. Maximum output per response: MiniCPM5-2B up to 131,072, Viv Fast up to 256,000, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
MiniCPM5-2B accepts text; Viv Fast accepts text and images; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash Next handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiniCPM5-2B and Qwen3.8 Flash Next publishes its weights (apache-2.0 and qwen-community-1.0) and can be self-hosted; Viv Fast is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Viv Fast is the newest, released Sep 21, 2026. MiniCPM5-2B came out Sep 6, 2026; Qwen3.8 Flash Next came out Aug 27, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Viv Fast Sep 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.
