Towards AITowards AIToneBench

Model Scorecard

MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)

Xiaomi · proprietary

MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed ranks #21 of 87 models on the November 2026 ToneBench board, and MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) is its only configuration, #43 of 151 configurations, with a Writing Score of 80.6/100 and a Writing Elo of 1913. One script costs $0.177 at API list price.

Last updated , from board data generated at 17:52 UTC.

Rank, scores, the nine metrics, the 10 reference scripts, cost and setup for one configuration (a model at one reasoning setting). Key Results sums it up; the section links below it jump to the detail.

Model Rank ?
#21 of 87 modelsits only configuration is #43 of 151 configurations
Writing Score ?
80.6 out of 100
Writing Elo ?
1913 95% range 1862 to 1952
Cost per Script
$0.177 at API list price

Key Results

Louis's PickI'd pick GPT-6 Sol (max) over this one: it ranks clearly higher for no more per script.

More Context Behind These Results

Writing Elo comes from comparing its average on each script with every other configuration's average on that same script; a gap smaller than the draft-to-draft variation counts as a draw (what the ranges can and cannot show).

On Tone & Voice Match, its best-ranked metric, its drafts sound closer to Louis's voice than the typical configuration's. Even its lowest-ranked metric, Substance, Accuracy & Value, ranks in the top half of the board, so no metric stands out as a weak spot.

The script format moves its score. If most of your scripts look like its best or weakest format, that result is a better guide than the average.

It outranks 6 configurations that cost at least 50% more.

It ranks highest of the 3 Xiaomi configurations on the board, though its Elo range overlaps that of MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on).

Among proprietary models, MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed is 16th of 53. As a configuration, it is 37th of 108 proprietary configurations. The best open-weight configuration, GLM-5.3 (max) at configuration #22, outranks it.

Lab
Xiaomi 1st of 3 modelsthis setting 1st of 3 configurations
Weights
Proprietary 16th of 53 modelsthis setting 37th of 108 configurations
Consistency
± 1.9 typical spread
Average Tokens
27.1k input + output
Time per Script
0.5 min average, retries included

Skill Profile Across the Nine Metrics

Each corner is one metric on a 0 to 100 scale; the further out, the higher the score. A corner outside the dashed line beats the board median. Hover or tap a point for its exact score, and a metric name for what it rewards.

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Slop?Cues?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)Board medianBoard best per metricMax possible (100)

Scores by Metric

Nine metrics, each scored 0 to 100 and weighted into the Writing Score; the weight sits under each name. Rank is out of all 151 ranked configurations.

Score colors:Strong: 82 and upMiddle: 65 to 81.9Weak: under 65
This modelBoard best (upper line)Board median (lower line)±: spread between drafts?: what the metric rewards
Tone & Voice Match ?19% weight · +4.2 vs median
board best 82.8 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)78.2± 1.7 · 34thboard median 74.0
Writing Craft & Clarity ?13% weight · +2.9 vs median
board best 83.2 · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)78.0± 1.2 · 44thboard median 75.0
Substance, Accuracy & Value ?15% weight · +0.8 vs median
board best 88.4 · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh)82.7± 2.5 · 64thboard median 81.8
Continuity & Emotion ?14% weight · +2.4 vs median
board best 85.7 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)80.0± 1.6 · 48thboard median 77.5
YouTube Best Practices ?12% weight · +2.2 vs median
board best 84.5 · Claude Fable 5.2 (max effort)78.6± 2.7 · 53rdboard median 76.4
Hook Strength ?10% weight · +1.0 vs median
board best 84.0 · Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)80.6± 3.0 · 59thboard median 79.6
Length Adherence ?8% weight · +4.6 vs median
board best 99.0 · Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)89.4± 6.0 · 53rdboard median 84.8
Slop Score ?5% weight · +2.6 vs median
board best 89.0 · GPT-6 Sol (medium)83.8± 1.4 · 49thboard median 81.3
Visual Cue Quality ?4% weight · +4.5 vs median
board best 85.9 · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)79.3± 2.3 · 42ndboard median 74.8

Scores by Reference Script

Every ranked configuration writes five drafts for each of the same 10 briefs, and each score is the mean of those drafts. The rank and board median compare it with every configuration on that script, which separates a weak result from a hard script. The result on the format closest to your own work is the most relevant.

Script 1
opinion / warning explainer
79.0
out of 100
61st of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.2
Script 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
80.6
out of 100
48th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 78.4
Script 3
personal roadmap / opinion
80.9
out of 100
39th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.2
Script 4
short explainer
78.5
out of 100
51st of 151 configurations on this script · board median 75.7
Script 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
81.2
out of 100
42nd of 151 configurations on this script · board median 78.0
Script 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
81.2
out of 100
52nd of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.2
Script 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
82.3
out of 100
27th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 77.9
Script 8
product release announcement / personal observation
81.3
out of 100
38th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.0
Script 9
career guide / hiring analysis
82.3
out of 100
42nd of 151 configurations on this script · board median 79.3
Script 10
engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation
78.8
out of 100
44th of 151 configurations on this script · board median 75.0

Consistency Between Drafts

Every score on this page is the mean of 5 drafts per script. The ± is the standard deviation between those drafts: the larger it is, the more two drafts of the same script can differ.

Consistency by Metric
MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice Match ?78.2 ± 1.7± 1.9typical
Writing Craft & Clarity ?78.0 ± 1.2± 1.5typical
Substance, Accuracy & Value ?82.7 ± 2.5± 2.1typical
Continuity & Emotion ?80.0 ± 1.6± 1.5typical
YouTube Best Practices ?78.6 ± 2.7± 2.4typical
Hook Strength ?80.6 ± 3.0± 2.7typical
Length Adherence ?89.4 ± 6.0± 6.6typical
Slop Score ?83.8 ± 1.4± 1.6typical
Visual Cue Quality ?79.3 ± 2.3± 2.9typical

Cost, Time and Tokens per Script

Logged on every run; none of these figures affects the Writing Score. Time is the average time to one accepted script, retries included. Cost is one script at the API list price.

Time per Script
0.5 minfaster than the board median of 1.5 min
Prompt tokens in
13.5kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens Out
13.6kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per Script
$0.177measured from actual billed tokens; varies ± 0.060 between drafts
List Price Used
$4.35 / $8.7input / output, per million tokens

Scores by Judge

Four judges score the same 50 stored drafts blind against the same rubric: three LLM judges from three labs, plus Jev, a typed judge from TypeSafe that rates each metric on five described quality levels. No single judge's taste decides the result. The Writing Score of 80.6 combines their scores with the parts computed in code (Length Adherence and half of the Slop Score). The highest and lowest judge are 12.0 points apart on its Writing Score. That is close to the board median of 13.4. Each judge also has its own scale, so every card shows that judge's score against its average across the board. How the panel works.

Claude Opus 5.5 (medium)
Anthropic
77.0
+8.4 against its board average of 68.7
GLM 5.3 Flash
Z.ai
88.5
+5.7 against its board average of 82.9
GPT-6.1 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
76.5
+4.6 against its board average of 71.9
Jev 1.13
TypeSafe
80.3
+6.3 against its board average of 74.0

Evaluation Setup

How this exact configuration was run and judged: route, model ID, dates, sampling and prompt.

Frequently Asked Questions

How Good Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) at Writing?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed ranks #21 of 87 models on ToneBench, and this is its only configuration on the board. This configuration is #43 of 151 configurations, in the upper third of the board, with a Writing Elo of 1913 and a Writing Score of 80.6/100. The ranks come from full YouTube scripts written in the voice of Louis-François Bouchard and judged blind, with the channel's finished script as the reference. The benchmark measures long-form scripted writing, so the result does not carry over to every kind of text.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) the Best Xiaomi Model for Writing?

Yes. Of the 3 Xiaomi configurations on the board, MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) ranks highest by Writing Elo, which makes MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed the top Xiaomi model, #21 of 87 models. Its Elo range overlaps that of MiMo-V2.6-Flash (thinking on).

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) Good Value for the Money?

It costs about $0.177 per script. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (high) ranks higher with an overlapping Elo range and costs less.

What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on)?

Its best-ranked metric is Tone & Voice Match (78.2, 34th of 151 configurations, +4.2 against the board median), and its lowest-ranked is Substance, Accuracy & Value (82.7, 64th of 151, +0.8). Even that one ranks in the top half of the board. The Scores by Metric section shows the board median and the board's best for each one.

How Was MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) Evaluated?

It was run through OpenRouter, with the exact model/route ID xiaomi/mimo-v2.6-pro-ultraspeed, first run on 2026-10-08. It wrote each script 5 times with the provider's default sampling and no fine-tuning. The Evaluation Setup section and the methodology page have the details.

Does MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed (thinking on) Have Open Weights?

No. It is a proprietary model: its weights are not public. Among proprietary configurations it is 37th of 108 for writing.

← All models   ← Leaderboard