text model comparison
Inkling 2 Small vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash are both current text models, from Thinking Machines Lab and Xiaomi MiMo. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 53% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Inkling 2 Small, $0.14 vs $0.30. In Thinking Machines Lab's Inkling 2 Small model card, Inkling 2 Small scores 72.1% on DeepSWE v1.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash 67.9%. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the larger context window, 1,000,000 vs 262,144 tokens.
- Lower price per 1M input tokens
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$0.14 against $0.30
- Longer context window
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash1M tokens against 262K tokens
- Newer release
- Inkling 2 SmallNov 2026 against Sep 2026
Data verified November 6, 2026 · Dataset 2026-11-06
Side by side
Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash, line by line
Prices in effect today, compared at the same tier wherever both list one. The better value in each row is highlighted.
| Fact | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Price | ||
| Price per 1M input tokens | $0.30 | $0.14 (better) |
| Price per 1M output tokens | $1 | $0.28 (better) |
| Independent benchmarks | ||
| Arena Text | Not measured | 1448 Elo (#35 of 52) |
| Arena WebDev | Not measured | 1637 Elo (#17 of 46) |
| Specs | ||
| Provider | Thinking Machines Lab | Xiaomi MiMo |
| Release date | November 5, 2026 | September 22, 2026 |
| Access | API only | API and open weights |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | Not reported | 128,000 tokens |
| Input | text, image | text, image, audio, video |
| Output | text | text |
No independent benchmark has scored both models yet. Each rank counts the current models scored on that benchmark.
Scores:Arena · 2026-11-03
Provider results
What the labs report
Results tables a lab published with one of its models, where it lists both Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash. These are the lab's own figures, not independent measurements, and each table is read on its own: labs run benchmarks with different harnesses and budgets.
Thinking Machines Lab, Inkling 2 Small model card, November 5, 2026Thinking Machines Lab · 2026-11-06
| Benchmark | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 72.1% (better) | 67.9% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 81.6% (better) | 79.0% |
| BioMysteryBench | 70.0% (better) | 69.3% |
| MCP Atlaspublic set | 85.0% (better) | 62.9% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | 67.5% (better) | 63.3% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | 69.5% (better) | 68.9% |
| Tax Agent Bench | 65.8% (better) | 59.9% |
| Harvey LAB v1.1 | 21.7% (better) | 13.3% |
| Legal Research Bench | 46.6% (better) | 38.0% |
| CharXiv (RQ) | 85.6% (better) | 66.2% |
| Chartography | 36.7% (better) | 7.5% |
| SAGE v1.1 | 88.6% (better) | 83.3% |
| LongBench v2 | 70.6% (better) | 60.7% |
| ComplexConstraints v1.0 | 44.5% (better) | 22.1% |
| CyberBench v1.1 | 72.7% | 75.4% (better) |
Thinking Machines' table from the Inkling 2 Small model card, run at effort 0.99 (xhigh) with a 1M-token trajectory limit; where a benchmark's owner publishes scores (Datacurve, Scale AI, Surge, Mercor, Thoughtful, Vals), Thinking Machines uses them. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is the 1017 build. Left out here: the Artificial Analysis and Vals indexes, the rows Artificial Analysis ran (FrontierCode, Terminal-Bench, GDP.pdf, MMMU-Pro, HLE, CritPt, AA-LCR, AA-Omniscience, AutomationBench, EnterpriseOps-Gym, Tau 3 Banking), Arena and DesignArena ratings, PMPP-Hard (not a percentage), the safety rows, and JobBench, DAYJOB and Humanity's Sixth Sense, which we could not confirm are public.
Charts
Against every current text model
Where Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash land among the current models of their task, on every independent benchmark, on price and on context.
Where each stands
Only MiMo-V2.6-Flash has a current Arena Text score: #35 of 52. Each bar is the share of current models it beats.
Independent benchmarks
Arena Text
Inkling 2 Small: Not scored
MiMo-V2.6-Flash:#35of 52
1,448 Elo · ahead of 31%
Arena WebDev
Inkling 2 Small: Not scored
MiMo-V2.6-Flash:#17of 46
1,637 Elo · ahead of 62%
Price and context
Price per 1M input tokens
Inkling 2 Small:#11of 58
$0.30 · cheaper than 75%
MiMo-V2.6-Flash:#4of 58
$0.14 · cheaper than 95%
Price per 1M output tokens
Inkling 2 Small:#10of 58
$1 · cheaper than 84%
MiMo-V2.6-Flash:#1of 58
$0.28 · cheaper than 100%
Context window
Inkling 2 Small:#57of 67
262K tokens · longer than 12%
MiMo-V2.6-Flash:#27of 67
1M tokens · longer than 24%
Quality against price
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 1,448 at $0.175 (blended price per 1M tokens). The line joins the current models no other beats on both price and Arena Text score; hover any point to name it.
Quality against price: the data
| Model | Provider | Blended price per 1M tokens | Arena Text (Elo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 4 Carbon | $4 | 1,528 | |
| Gemini 4 Argon | $4 | 1,520 | |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Anthropic | $8 | 1,509 |
| Muse Wonder | Meta | $8 | 1,507 |
| Claude Fable 5 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,504 |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | Anthropic | $20 | 1,504 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | $1.50 | 1,496 | |
| Muse Spark 1.3 | Meta | $2 | 1,495 |
| Claude Opus 5 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,492 |
| Kimi K3 | Moonshot Kimi | $6 | 1,488 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | OpenAI | $8 | 1,485 |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | $3 | 1,483 | |
| GPT-5.5 | OpenAI | $11 | 1,482 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Anthropic | $10 | 1,482 |
| Qwen3.8-Max | Alibaba Qwen | $3 | 1,482 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,481 |
| GLM-5.3 | Z.ai | $2.15 | 1,481 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.54 | 1,480 |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,477 |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | Z.ai | $0.24 | 1,477 |
| GPT-6 Astra | OpenAI | $20 | 1,476 |
| DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | DeepSeek | $0.52 | 1,476 |
| GPT-5.4 | OpenAI | $5.63 | 1,475 |
| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | $1.13 | 1,473 | |
| Grok 4.20 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,472 |
| GPT-5.6 Terra | OpenAI | $4.50 | 1,467 |
| Grok 4.5 | xAI | $3 | 1,465 |
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | DeepSeek | $1.98 | 1,465 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Anthropic | $4 | 1,462 |
| GPT-6 Sol | OpenAI | $4 | 1,458 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | $0.85 | 1,456 | |
| Grok 4.6 | xAI | $3 | 1,455 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.45 | 1,453 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Xiaomi MiMo | $0.18 | 1,448 |
| Step 5 Preview | StepFun | $1.43 | 1,448 |
| Grok 4.3 | xAI | $1.56 | 1,442 |
| GPT-6 Luna | OpenAI | $0.20 | 1,441 |
| Grok 4.7 | xAI | $3 | 1,441 |
| Mistral Large 4 | Mistral AI | $1.05 | 1,432 |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Anthropic | $0.20 | 1,425 |
| GPT-4.1 | OpenAI | $3.50 | 1,415 |
| Solar Pro 4 | Upstage | $0.52 | 1,388 |
| GPT-4.1 mini | OpenAI | $0.70 | 1,383 |
| GPT-4.1 nano | OpenAI | $0.18 | 1,322 |
Cost
What each costs
Example workloads at each provider's listed rates, then every other rate either one lists. The cheaper figure in each row is highlighted.
The same work, priced
For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Inkling 2 Small costs 2.6 times as much as MiMo-V2.6-Flash, at each provider's listed rates.
10M input and 2M output tokens
Inkling 2 Small costs 2.6× as much
- Inkling 2 Small
- $5
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $1.96
The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached
Inkling 2 Small costs 3.5× as much
- Inkling 2 Small
- $2.57
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- $0.73
| Workload or rate | Inkling 2 Small | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Example workloads | ||
| 10M input and 2M output tokens | $5 | $1.96 (better) |
| The same, with 9M of the input tokens cached | $2.57 | $0.73 (better) |
| The same, through the batch API | Not listed | $0.98 |
| Other listed rates | ||
| 1M input tokens, cached | $0.03 | $0.0028 (better) |
| 1M input tokens, batch | Not listed | $0.07 |
| 1M output tokens, batch | Not listed | $0.14 |
Your own bill will differ. These figures use list prices and example workloads. The AI Model Cost Audit reviews your real usage, shortlists models that score as well for each task for less, and estimates the savings.
Launch price $100, regular price $150
Verdict
When to choose each
Inkling 2 Small
Where it leads
No measured lead over MiMo-V2.6-Flash in this data.
Best for
- Agentic coding and office, finance and legal work at a low per-token price
- Teams that want to post-train their own variant on Tinker
Watch out for
- Closed weights for now: Thinking Machines says it will publish the full weights under Apache 2.0 the week after launch, once external safety testing ends; until then Tinker is the only way to use it
- Tinker serves it with a 64K or 256K context, although the model card lists up to 1M tokens
- In its lab's own table DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash scores higher on DeepSWE v1.1 (77.0% against 72.1%) and Claude Haiku 5.5 on Vibe Code Bench (90.4% against 81.6%); Thinking Machines also says it is less tuned for chat, and no independent benchmark score is recorded here yet
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Where it leads
- Lower input and output prices, $0.14 and $0.28 vs $0.30 and $1 per 1M tokens
- Larger context window 1,000,000 vs 262,144 tokens
- Accepts audio and video input
- Open weights you can run yourself
- Cheaper cached input, $0.0028 vs $0.03 per 1M tokens
- Batch pricing, $0.07 input and $0.14 output per 1M tokens
Best for
- High-frequency multimodal calls
- Low-cost agent workloads
Watch out for
- Xiaomi's own table puts it well behind the Pro model on exploitation tasks (ExploitBench 25.3 against 47.9)
- The API checkpoint (RL or MOPD weights) is not identified
From benchmark to production
Building on Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Public scores rarely hold on your own data. We test both models on your real tasks, then build the agent or pipeline around the one that wins.
AI Model Cost AuditLaunch price $100, regular price $150What the audit includes
FAQ
Inkling 2 Small vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash FAQ
Which is cheaper, Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 53% cheaper per 1M input tokens than Inkling 2 Small, $0.14 vs $0.30. For 10M input and 2M output tokens, Inkling 2 Small costs $5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash $1.96 at standard rates.
Which is cheaper with prompt caching, Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Inkling 2 Small charges $0.03 per 1M cached input tokens, 90% below its standard input rate, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.0028, 98% below. With 9M of 10M input tokens cached and 2M output tokens, Inkling 2 Small costs $2.57 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.73.
How do Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash compare in Thinking Machines Lab's own results?
In the Inkling 2 Small model card (November 5, 2026), Inkling 2 Small leads on DeepSWE v1.1, 72.1% to 67.9%; Inkling 2 Small leads on Vibe Code Bench v1.1, 81.6% to 79.0%; Inkling 2 Small leads on BioMysteryBench, 70.0% to 69.3%. These are Thinking Machines Lab's figures, not independent measurements.
Which has the larger context window, Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the larger context window, 1,000,000 vs 262,144 tokens.
How do Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash differ in features?
Inkling 2 Small takes text and image input; MiMo-V2.6-Flash takes text, image, audio and video.
Can I run Inkling 2 Small or MiMo-V2.6-Flash myself?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is released as open weights you can run yourself; Inkling 2 Small is available through its provider's API only.
Further reading
More on Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Related comparisons
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Inkling 2 Small
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Inkling 2 Small
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Inkling 2 Small
- GPT-6 Luna vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Inkling 2 Small
- Grok 4.3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Inkling 2 Small
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- GLM-5.3 vs Inkling 2 Small
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Step 5 Preview
Production evaluation
Choosing between Inkling 2 Small and MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Public benchmarks narrow the shortlist. We run both on your own tasks, data and cost limits, then build the routing and review controls to run the winner in production.
- A head-to-head evaluation on your real workload
- Routing between models by cost and difficulty