Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.1 to 34.1.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderIBMXiaomi
Noometry Index33.248.5
Released—2026-09-21
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—1.05M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.14
Output $ / M tokens—$0.28
Results tracked1219

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Coding11491504
LMArena WebDev—1637
SciCode—51.3%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11381482
CritPt—12%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Math11591468
ProofBench—63%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert11311501

Multimodal Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Vision—1259

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English10681434
LMArena Chinese11391511
LMArena Russian10631409
LMArena French—1475
LMArena Spanish—1456

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following11161463

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query11551463

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructMiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text11271455
LMArena Creative Writing11161400
LMArena Multi-Turn10991451

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper