Model comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2.5 scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 23.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 3% for Mercury 2.5 and 63% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 260K.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash specifications
Mercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProviderInceptionXiaomi
Noometry Index33.548.5
Released2026-09-082026-09-21
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window260K1.05M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.04$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$0.28
Results tracked419

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
SciCode38.5%51.3%
LMArena WebDev—1637
LMArena Coding—1504
ALE-Bench301.65—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
CritPt0%12%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1482

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
ProofBench3%63%
LMArena Math—1468

Knowledge Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Expert—1501

Multimodal Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Vision—1259

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Non-English—1434
LMArena Chinese—1511
LMArena French—1475
LMArena Russian—1409
LMArena Spanish—1456

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1463

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1463

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.6-Flash
LMArena Text—1455
LMArena Creative Writing—1400
LMArena Multi-Turn—1451

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

Is Mercury 2.5 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper