Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#74); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 37.4 to 22.4.
- 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 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 30.2 | 44.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2026-09-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 2 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1516 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1481 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1477 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1516 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1266 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1439 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1501 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1424 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1463 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1465 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1459 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1408 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#74); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
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.
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?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13.