// head_to_head
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better model, at roughly the same price.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads by 5.5 points overall and the two list within about 10% of each other, so the cheaper-but-weaker trade-off does not apply. Price parity plus a score gap usually makes this an easy call.
deepseek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- Blended / 1M
- $0.525
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Oct 17, 2026
- Overall score
- 74.0
xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Blended / 1M
- $0.544
- Context
- 1.1M
- Released
- Sep 21, 2026
- Overall score
- 68.5
Specs and pricing
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 74.0win | 68.5 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.0018 | $0.0018 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.525 | $0.544 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.300win | $0.435 |
| Output price / 1M | $1.20 | $0.870win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.0060 | $0.0036win |
| Context window | 1.0M | 1.1M |
| Max output tokens | 393Kwin | 131K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 on top, MiMo-V2.6-Pro below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $146.83/mo | $142.94/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $194.40/mo | $227.64/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $171.36/mo | $176.02/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $375.30/mo | $478.68/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $723.00/mo | $958.80/mo |
Which should you pick?
Quality matters more than the bill
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 74.0.
The workload is coding or agentic work
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Leads on long-horizon agentic — 40.9 against 35.2.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro FAQ
Which is better, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better model, at roughly the same price. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads by 5.5 points overall and the two list within about 10% of each other, so the cheaper-but-weaker trade-off does not apply. Price parity plus a score gap usually makes this an easy call.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
They cost about the same. Both land near $0.525 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores 74.0 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 68.5 overall on LiveBench, the weighted mean of its seven categories. That is a 5.5-point lead for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.
Which gives better value for money, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
They are close. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.0018 per point of overall capability and MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs $0.0018, a difference small enough that workload shape will matter more than the rate.
Does DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1.0M for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and 1.1M for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.0060 per million for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and $0.0036 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro, against full input rates of $0.300 and $0.435. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.