Model Comparison
Kimi K3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Kimi K3 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) by 216 Elo, and their 95% ranges sit 124 Elo apart. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, Kimi K3 is #10 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is #18. Cost per script: $0.362 for Kimi K3 (max) and $0.0057 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickKimi K3
Kimi K3 (max)
Pick Kimi K3 (max) when the script is the one you'll publish, at $0.362 for a 216 Elo lead over MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) for bulk drafts at $0.0057 a script, since the board cannot separate it from Kimi K3 (high) at about 22 times the price.
Kimi K3 (high) is the setting I'd leave out of this match-up. It rates 9 Elo under MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), the ranges overlap so the board cannot separate them, and it costs $0.128 a script against $0.0057, about 22 times as much. Kimi K3 (max) is the setting that pulls ahead. The extra thinking lifts it 225 Elo, and it leads MiMo by 216 with ranges that sit well apart: the #10 model of 78 against the #18 model, when each is ranked by its best setting. Kimi at max wins eight of nine metrics, most clearly length adherence by 6.6 points, then substance, continuity and YouTube structure by two to two and a half. MiMo keeps a small edge on slop. That lead has a price: about 64 times MiMo's cost per script, and nearly ten minutes against three and a half. I'd pay for Kimi at max when the script is going on camera, and send bulk drafts to MiMo at well under a cent.
How to Read the Writing Score, Writing Elo and 95% Ranges
Writing Score and Writing Elo. The Writing Score (0 to 100) is the weighted average of the nine metric scores: seven from the judges, Length Adherence from code and the Slop Score half from each. The Writing Elo is a rating from pairwise comparisons: on each script, each configuration's average across its drafts is compared with every other configuration's, and gaps within the draft-to-draft variation count as draws. Elo rewards winning often, so the two can put configurations in a different order.
Elo ranges. Each 95% range shows how far a configuration's Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently. It comes from resampling every configuration's recorded draft scores on each reference script and ranking again. Comparing two separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between them: ranges far apart are strong evidence for the order, and overlapping ranges do not mean a tie. The reference scripts stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new scripts. The methodology page has the full description.
All Thinking Levels of Both Models
Every ranked configuration of Kimi K3 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash, scored on the same 10 scripts by the same four judges.
- Each row is one configuration: the model at one thinking level. The dot is its Writing Elo, a rating from pairwise comparisons of the scores on each script, and the bar is its 95% range: how far that Elo could move if the drafts had come out slightly differently.
- When two bars overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations. Bars far apart are strong evidence for the order.
- The table under the chart lists the same configurations in the same order and adds the Writing Score (the 0 to 100 consensus of the judges and code), cost, time and configuration rank (the place among all configurations on the board).
Shaded rows are the configurations chosen for the metric comparison below.
| Configuration | Writing Elo | 95% Range | Writing Score | Cost / Script | Time / Script | Reasoning Tokens | Configuration Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K3 (max) | 2203 | 2158 to 2243 | 82.2 | $0.362 | 9.9 min | 18,568 | #20 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | 1987 | 1929 to 2034 | 80.4 | $0.0057 | 3.5 min | 11,025 | #35 |
| Kimi K3 (high) | 1978 | 1936 to 2029 | 80.3 | $0.128 | 2.8 min | 3,081 | #37 |
Cost is one script at the API list price of the route used, uncached and without judging. Time is the average for one accepted script, retries included.
Computed Findings Across Thinking Levels
Each finding is computed from the configurations above. Where two 95% ranges overlap, the board cannot order those two configurations.
- Best Configurations Head to Head. Kimi K3 (max) leads MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) by 216 Elo, and their 95% ranges do not overlap (2158 to 2243 against 1929 to 2034), which is strong evidence for that order.
- Cheapest Kimi K3 Configuration Above MiMo-V2.6-Flash's Best. The cheapest Kimi K3 configuration with a higher Writing Elo than MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), at Elo 1987 and $0.0057 per script, is Kimi K3 (max), at Elo 2203 and $0.362 per script. It costs about 64 times as much per script.
- Lowest to Highest Thinking Level. Kimi K3 moves +225 Elo from high to max, at about 2.8 times the cost per script.
Two Chosen Configurations Compared
Pick one configuration of each model to compare their metric scores, consistency across drafts and per-script scores. Each menu starts on the model's best configuration.
Scores by Metric
Kimi K3 (max) scores higher on eight of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) on one. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Length Adherence does the most to put Kimi K3 (max) ahead, with a 6.6-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| Kimi K3 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.68 | 1.86 |
| Lowest script score | 80.0 Script 10 | 78.9 Script 1 |
| Highest script score | 83.8 Script 9 | 81.9 Script 5 |
| Range across scripts | 3.8 | 3.0 |
Spread is how much the Writing Score moves between a configuration's drafts, and lower is steadier. Green marks the better number in each row.
Scores by Script
Writing Score on each reference script. Gap is Kimi K3 (max) minus MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | Kimi K3 (max) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 81.4 | 78.9 | +2.5 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 82.6 | 80.3 | +2.3 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 81.8 | 79.4 | +2.4 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 80.1 | 79.4 | +0.7 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 83.4 | 81.9 | +1.5 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 83.2 | 81.4 | +1.8 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 83.6 | 79.9 | +3.7 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 82.3 | 81.4 | +0.9 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 83.8 | 81.9 | +1.9 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 80.0 | 79.7 | +0.3 |
Scorecards and Thinking Pages
Each configuration name in the table above opens its own scorecard.
Compare With Another Model
Pick a second model. A pair with its own written match-up opens that page, and any other pair opens in the comparison tool.
Nearby Match-Ups by Best Writing Elo
Every configuration wrote five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, from the same prompt. Generation was closed-book, with the prompt as the only source and no web search or other tools. Each judge scores every draft once: Claude Opus 5.5 at medium effort through the Claude Code subscription, GPT-6.1 Sol at medium reasoning through the Codex CLI, GLM 5.3 Flash through OpenRouter, and Jev 1.13, a typed judge from TypeSafe that answers each metric as a multiple-choice question. The channel's finished script is their reference for the voice, and it gets no score on the board itself.
← All comparisons