Model Comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Too close to call: the best configurations, MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), are 10 Elo apart, and their 95% ranges overlap. Among 78 models, each ranked by its best configuration, MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed is #17 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash is #18. Cost per script: $0.177 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) and $0.0057 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on).
Last updated , from board data generated at 01:13 UTC.
Picks and Verdict
PickMiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) when someone is waiting on the draft, since half a minute per script is what the $0.177 pays for.
PickMiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on)
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) for anything that can wait 3.5 minutes, since the board can't separate it from UltraSpeed and it costs $0.0057.
Paying about thirty times more buys you three minutes a script, and that's the whole trade on this page. MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) are 10 Elo apart, their 95% ranges overlap for most of their width, and each takes five of the ten scripts. The board cannot separate them on writing, and they sit side by side as the #17 model of 78 and the #18 model. Each model has one setting on the board, and both spend about eleven thousand reasoning tokens a script, so there's no cheaper level to fall back on and no sign that one thinks harder. UltraSpeed returns a draft in half a minute for $0.177. Flash takes three and a half minutes and costs $0.0057. The metrics go both ways. UltraSpeed is nearly two points ahead on substance and a bit closer to my tone, while Flash writes the better hook by about two points and leads six of the nine rows by small margins. For batch drafts, three extra minutes cost nothing, so I'd take Flash. UltraSpeed makes sense when someone is waiting on the draft.
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-Pro UltraSpeed 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | 1997 | 1954 to 2037 | 80.6 | $0.177 | 0.5 min | 10,745 | #34 |
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | 1987 | 1929 to 2034 | 80.4 | $0.0057 | 3.5 min | 11,025 | #35 |
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-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) at Elo 1997 (range 1954 to 2037) and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) at Elo 1987 (range 1929 to 2034) have overlapping 95% ranges, so the board cannot separate the two best configurations.
- Cheapest Configuration Overlapping the Top One. MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), at $0.0057 per script, is the cheapest configuration whose 95% range overlaps that of MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on), at $0.177 per script: 1929 to 2034 against 1954 to 2037, so the board cannot separate them. MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) costs about 31 times as much 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
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) scores higher on three of the nine metrics and MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) on six. Weighted by each metric's share of the Writing Score, Substance, Accuracy & Value does the most to put MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) ahead, with a 1.7-point lead on that metric. The weight beside each metric is its share of the Writing Score.
Consistency Across Drafts
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | |
|---|---|---|
| Score spread across drafts (±) | 1.87 | 1.86 |
| Lowest script score | 78.5 Script 4 | 78.9 Script 1 |
| Highest script score | 82.3 Script 7 | 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 MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) minus MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on), and the higher score is in bold.
| Script | MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) | MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Script 1 opinion / warning explainer | 79.0 | 78.9 | +0.1 |
| Script 2 news-analysis / skeptical explainer | 80.6 | 80.3 | +0.3 |
| Script 3 personal roadmap / opinion | 80.9 | 79.4 | +1.5 |
| Script 4 short explainer | 78.5 | 79.4 | -0.9 |
| Script 5 news-analysis / opinion explainer | 81.2 | 81.9 | -0.7 |
| Script 6 founder announcement / personal origin story | 81.2 | 81.4 | -0.2 |
| Script 7 personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study | 82.3 | 79.9 | +2.4 |
| Script 8 product release announcement / personal observation | 81.3 | 81.4 | -0.1 |
| Script 9 career guide / hiring analysis | 82.3 | 81.9 | +0.4 |
| Script 10 engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation | 78.8 | 79.7 | -0.9 |
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