Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Ring-2.6-1T
MiMo-V2-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#138); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 40.7 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 42.4% for Ring-2.6-1T.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-16 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 25.9% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | — |
Math Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena French | 1429 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Ring-2.6-1T?
MiMo-V2-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#138); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.