Towards AITowards AIToneBench

ai MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed

Other · proprietary · writing benchmark

#24 of 167 Elo 2197 Overall 88.3 Proprietary
Rank
#24 of 167
Writing Elo
2197 ±40
Overall
88.3 / 100
Cost / task
$0.122 per script
Family
Other 1st of 9
Type
Closed 21st of 114
Consistency
± 1.6 steadier than most
Avg tokens
19.9k in+out
Latency
27s per call

The short version

MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed sits at #24 of 167 on ToneBench, in the middle of the pack, with a writing Elo of 2197 and an overall score of 88.3 out of 100. We measured it by having it write all 10 of our real YouTube scripts, five times each, then scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions. Here is how it shook out.

Inside Other, this is the strongest writer we tested. It edges out the other 8 Other configs on the board, so if you're staying in this family for voice work, this is the one to reach for.

Among proprietary models, it comes in 21st of 114. That ranking is against the stronger half of the board: closed models still set the pace on voice fidelity here.

What it does best is Writing Craft: it ranks 17th on that dimension at 89.4, well above the board average. Its softer spot is Length Discipline (86.1, 50th), which is the thing to watch if that metric matters most for your use.

It was uneven across the 10 scripts. Its best run was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (90.1) and its weakest was the engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation (87.0), a spread of about 3 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.

On cost, it runs about $0.122/task. GLM-5.3 Flash scores higher for less money, at $0.007/task, so on pure value this config is not the frontier. Still, it beats 14 models that cost noticeably more.

Skill profile

The shape is the story: the further a corner reaches, the stronger that dimension. Biggest edge over the board: Length Discipline (+15.3); smallest edge: Hook (+7.0).

50Tone?Craft?Substance?Flow?YouTube?Hook?Length?Anti-Slop?Cues?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeedBoard averageBoard best per metricMax possible (100)

Per-metric scores

Nine writing dimensions, each scored 0–100 and blended by the editorial weight shown. Rank is against all 167 current-ranked models. The thick bar is this model; the thin lines above and below are the current field's best model (darker) and average (lighter) on the same scale. The small ± number is its run-to-run variation.

Tone & Voice ?19% weight · +9.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 91.088.4± 1.6 · 23rdboard avg · 78.6
Writing Craft ?13% weight · +8.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 91.589.4± 1.2 · 17thboard avg · 80.5
Substance & Value ?15% weight · +8.8 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) · 90.788.2± 1.6 · 21stboard avg · 79.4
Flow & Emotion ?14% weight · +10.7 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 90.987.8± 1.7 · 25thboard avg · 77.0
YouTube Structure ?12% weight · +11.4 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 91.788.2± 1.9 · 23rdboard avg · 76.7
Hook ?10% weight · +7.0 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 91.288.5± 1.1 · 27thboard avg · 81.6
Length Discipline ?8% weight · +15.3 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 97.686.1± 9.3 · 50thboard avg · 70.8
Anti-Slop ?5% weight · +7.9 vs avg
best · Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) · 94.992.0± 1.3 · 27thboard avg · 84.2
Visual Cues ?4% weight · +8.7 vs avg
best · GPT-5.6 Sol (ultra) · 90.185.7± 1.9 · 47thboard avg · 77.0

Per-article scores

The same 10 real scripts every current-ranked model writes, scored individually. Different formats stress different skills.

Article 1
opinion / warning explainer
87.6
out of 100
Article 2
news-analysis / skeptical explainer
87.7
out of 100
Article 3
personal roadmap / opinion
88.0
out of 100
Article 4
short explainer
87.8
out of 100
Article 5
news-analysis / opinion explainer
87.7
out of 100
Article 6
founder announcement / personal origin story
88.3
out of 100
Article 7
personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study
90.1
out of 100
Article 8
product release announcement / personal observation
88.7
out of 100
Article 9
career guide / hiring analysis
90.0
out of 100
Article 10
engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation
87.0
out of 100

Consistency: run-to-run variability

Every cell on this page is the mean of 5 independent runs per script; the ± numbers are the run-to-run standard deviation. Overall, MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed varies by ± 1.6 points between runs versus a board median of ± 2.7, so it is noticeably steadier than the typical model here.

Its steadiest is Hook (± 1.1 vs ± 2.0 board median), which you can rely on run after run.

MetricThis modelBoard medianVerdict
Tone & Voice ?88.4 ± 1.6± 1.7typical
Writing Craft ?89.4 ± 1.2± 1.5typical
Substance & Value ?88.2 ± 1.6± 2.0typical
Flow & Emotion ?87.8 ± 1.7± 1.8typical
YouTube Structure ?88.2 ± 1.9± 2.9typical
Hook ?88.5 ± 1.1± 2.0steadier than most
Length Discipline ?86.1 ± 9.3± 8.6typical
Anti-Slop ?92.0 ± 1.3± 2.1typical
Visual Cues ?85.7 ± 1.9± 3.2typical

Measured, not modeled

Numbers we log on every run and rarely talk about. None of these affect the writing scores; cost and latency are informational.

Latency per script
27sfaster than the board median of 70s
Prompt tokens in
11.6kstyle guide + brief + research packet
Tokens out
8.2kscript + any reasoning tokens
Cost per script
$0.122 ± 0.045measured from actual billed tokens
List price used
$4.35 / $8.7 per M tokinput / output

What each judge scored it

The published overall of 88.3 is the consensus of three family-disjoint judges scoring the same 50 stored drafts blind with the identical rubric. The highest and lowest judge differ by 3.4 points on its overall. The three judges essentially agree on this model. How the panel works: methodology.

Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
87.9
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium)
OpenAI
90.2
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek
86.8

How we ran MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed

Frequently asked questions

How good is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed at writing?

On ToneBench it ranks #24 of 167 with a writing Elo of 2197 and an overall score of 88.3/100. That score comes from writing our 10 real YouTube scripts five times each and scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions across nine writing dimensions.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed the best Other model for writing?

Yes. Among the Other configs we tested, MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed is the strongest writer on the board.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed good value for the money?

It costs about $0.122/task. GLM-5.3 Flash scores higher for less, so it is not the value pick.

What are MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed's strengths and weaknesses?

Its strongest dimension is Writing Craft (17th on the board, 89.4). Its weakest is Length Discipline (50th on the board, 86.1). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.

Does MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed write some formats better than others?

Yes. Its best of our 10 scripts was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (90.1) and its weakest was the engineering process walkthrough / presentation adaptation (87.0).

How consistent is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed between runs?

We run every script 5 times. MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed's overall score varies by about ±1.6 points between runs, versus a board median of ±2.7. That makes it one of the steadier models we test. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.

How was MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed evaluated?

Via OpenRouter using the exact model/route id xiaomi/mimo-v2.6-pro-ultraspeed, run on 2026-09-25. 5 runs per script, provider-default sampling, no fine-tuning; every draft scored blind with a fixed rubric by a three-family judge panel. Full details in the 'How we ran it' section and the methodology.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro UltraSpeed open source?

No, it is a proprietary (closed-weights) model. Among proprietary models it ranks 21st of 114 for writing.

← Back to the full ToneBench leaderboard