Pareto vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed comes out ahead, 44 to 34 on our weighted score, though Pareto is 31% cheaper per token.
Unbiased
Pareto
34/100- ECI—
- Price$2.50 / $7.50
- Context262K
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
44/100- ECI—
- Price$4.35 / $8.70
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is our pick
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the better all-round choice, scoring 44/100 against Pareto (34). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Pareto wins on price. 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 priceParetoPareto $3.75 · MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed $5.44 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed 1,048,576 · Pareto 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedPareto: Text, Images · MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Pareto | MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 23 | 15 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 50 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 44/100 |
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 | ParetoUnbiased | MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeedXiaomi |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.50 (best) | $4.35 |
| Output | $7.50 (best) | $8.70 |
| Cached input | — | $0.036 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.75 (best) | $5.44 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | mimo-v2.6-pro-ultraspeed |
| API providers | 4 | 9 (best) |
| Released | Sep 17, 2026 | Sep 21, 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.
- Pareto$40.00
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed$60.90
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Pareto or MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the better all-round choice, scoring 44/100 against Pareto (34). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Pareto wins on price. 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, Pareto or MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed?
Pareto is cheaper at $2.50 input / $7.50 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed costs $4.35 input / $8.70 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.75 per million tokens for Pareto versus $5.44 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Pareto has not been scored yet and MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Pareto and MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed 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-Pro-UltraSpeed has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Pareto. Maximum output per response: Pareto up to 131,072, MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Pareto accepts text and images; MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Pareto is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the newest, released Sep 21, 2026. Pareto came out Sep 17, 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BThree-way comparison
- Pareto vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen)
- Pareto vs Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI
- Pareto vs Command A PlusCohere
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed vs Qwen 3.8 Max PrimeAlibaba (Qwen)
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed vs Command A PlusCohere
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed vs Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI
