Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash comes out ahead, 80 to 59 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
NVIDIANemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context1.05M
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Flash
80/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
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 80/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (59). It leads on price and 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 priceMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.175 · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 1,048,576 · MiMo-V2.6-Flash 1,048,576 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B: Text · MiMo-V2.6-Flash: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 73 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 59/100 | 80/100 |
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 | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA | MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.14 (best) |
| Output | $0.50 | $0.28 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.0028 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.275 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.6-flash |
| API providers | 1 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Oct 15, 2026 | Sep 22, 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.
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B$3.00
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$1.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (59). It leads on price and 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, Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B has not been scored yet and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B and MiMo-V2.6-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?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share the same 1,048,576-token context window. Maximum output per response: Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B up to 131,072, MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B accepts text; MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.6-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B is the newest, released Oct 15, 2026. MiMo-V2.6-Flash came out Sep 22, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add MiniMax-M3.1-FlashThree-way comparison
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs MiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs Mercury 2.5Inception
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Solar Mini 4Upstage
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
