Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 12 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1

DeepSeek

42.2

Rank #106 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

46.7

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 53.2 to 39.8.
DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.95 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 164K.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro specifications
	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Provider	DeepSeek	Xiaomi
Noometry Index	42.2	46.7
Released	2025-08-21	2026-09-22
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	164K	1.05M
Max output	8K	131K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.25	$0.43
Output $ / M tokens	$0.95	$0.87
Results tracked	27	14

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 39.8 (#140), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Coding	1417	1538
LMArena WebDev	—	1618
WeirdML	38.4%	—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.3 (#109), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Hard Prompts	1417	1511
SimpleBench	40%	—
Kagi LLM Benchmark	53.2%	—
DTBench	82.7%	—
LMCA	24.3%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	139.92	—
ForecastBench	58	—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.1 (#125), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Math	1420	1497

Knowledge Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.0 (#86), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Expert	1403	1548
Vectara Hallucination Rate	5.5%	—

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1: —, MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Vision	—	1265

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.8 (#100), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Non-English	1400	1474
LMArena Chinese	1470	1532
LMArena Russian	1405	1481
LMArena French	1447	—
LMArena German	1412	—
LMArena Japanese	1374	—
LMArena Korean	1337	—
LMArena Spanish	1429	—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 74.1 (#105), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Instruction Following	1400	1490

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#227), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Longer Query	1422	1500
Fiction.LiveBench	52.8%	—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.5 (#93), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	MiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Text	1420	1491
LMArena Creative Writing	1401	1465
LMArena Multi-Turn	1408	1463
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1436	—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.95 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 39.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14.