Model Comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Too close to call: the best configurations, MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), are 34 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is #18 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro is #20. Cost per script: $0.0057 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) and $0.017 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickMiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) as the default of the two, with the better hook at $0.0057 a script.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) if your drafts keep missing the target length, at $0.017 a script.
You'd expect the Pro model to win this one, and on the board it doesn't. MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) sits at 1987 Elo and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) at 1953, and their 95% ranges overlap, so the board cannot separate them. Each has a single setting here, so there's no thinking ladder to compare, and those two settings make MiMo-V2.6-Flash the #18 model of 78 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro the #20 model. Flash costs $0.0057 a script, about a third of Pro's price, and finishes in 3.5 minutes against 6.2. It also scores higher on seven of the nine metrics, and the hook is the biggest of those, three points up. Pro keeps two: tone, by less than a point, and Length Adherence, by a bit over three points, so its scripts land closer to the target. Their drafts are as steady as each other, and only Flash has open weights. If length is what you fix most often, Pro has a case. For everything else I'd run Flash and keep the difference.
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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | 1987 | 1929 to 2034 | 80.4 | $0.0057 | 3.5 min | 11,025 | #35 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | 1953 | 1905 to 1997 | 80.2 | $0.017 | 6.2 min | 10,176 | #39 |
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. MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) at Elo 1987 (range 1929 to 2034) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) at Elo 1953 (range 1905 to 1997) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
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
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) scores higher on seven of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) on two. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Hook Strength does the most to put MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) ahead, with a 3.0-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.86 | 1.87 |
| Lowest script score | 78.9 Script 1 | 78.0 Script 4 |
| Highest script score | 81.9 Script 5 | 82.5 Script 9 |
| Range across scripts | 3.0 | 4.5 |
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 MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) minus MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | MiMo-V2.6-Pro (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 78.9 | 79.3 | -0.4 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.3 | 79.9 | +0.4 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 79.4 | 79.7 | -0.3 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 79.4 | 78.0 | +1.4 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 81.9 | 81.5 | +0.4 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.4 | 81.1 | +0.3 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 79.9 | 80.3 | -0.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.4 | 80.7 | +0.7 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 81.9 | 82.5 | -0.6 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 79.7 | 79.4 | +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