Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3 vs MiMo-V2-Flash
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 43.0 to 34.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 35.8% for DeepSeek-V3 and 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.24 / $0.90 for DeepSeek-V3.
- MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 164K.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 39.5 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2024-12-26 | 2025-12-16 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 164K | 262K |
| Max output | 164K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.24 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 60 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-V3 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 42.3 (#106), MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.8% | 25.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1368 | 1443 |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1330 |
| WeirdML | 36.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 50% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 70.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 62.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 737.95 |
| HumanEval+ | 86.6% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3: —, MiMo-V2-Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| METR Time Horizons | 49.6% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads
DeepSeek-V3: 20.5 (#236), MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1365 | 1420 |
| SimpleBench | 27.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 65.8% | — |
| DTBench | 64.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 60.9% | — |
| LMCA | 15.5% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 87.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.94 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.1 | — |
| HellaSwag | 88.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
| PIQA | 84.7% | — |
| WinoGrande | 85.2% | — |
Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads
DeepSeek-V3: 32.1 (#219), MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1396 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 37.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 40.3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 73.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 75.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads
DeepSeek-V3: 37.5 (#155), MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1351 | 1425 |
| GPQA Diamond | 67.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 72.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 26.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 53.8% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 95.3% | — |
| MMLU | 87.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 82.9% | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads
DeepSeek-V3: 48.5 (#143), MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1392 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1391 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1385 | 1429 |
| LMArena German | 1374 | 1395 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1333 | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | 1319 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1358 | 1420 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3: 72.8 (#130), MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1345 | 1392 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| IFEval | 83.2% | — |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads
DeepSeek-V3: 34.0 (#253), MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1352 | 1409 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 50% | — |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads
DeepSeek-V3: 57.4 (#130), MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | MiMo-V2-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1375 | 1411 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1364 | 1375 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1404 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 77% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1472 | — |
| WildBench | 83% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 49.1% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3 better than MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3 or MiMo-V2-Flash?
MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3 lists at $0.24 and $0.90.
Is DeepSeek-V3 or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.3 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3 and MiMo-V2-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3 has 60 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.