// head_to_head
Qwen3 Coder Flash 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.
Qwen3 Coder Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Qwen3 Coder Flash does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
qwen
Qwen3 Coder Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.390
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Sep 17, 2025
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Blended / 1M
- $0.544
- Context
- 1.1M
- Released
- Sep 21, 2026
- Overall score
- 68.5
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Qwen3 Coder Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 68.5 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0018 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.390win | $0.544 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.195win | $0.435 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.975 | $0.870win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.039 | $0.0036win |
| Context window | 1M | 1.1M |
| Max output tokens | 66K | 131Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Qwen3 Coder Flash 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 | Qwen3 Coder Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $113.57/mo | $142.94/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $152.10/mo | $227.64/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $146.64/mo | $176.02/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $260.32/mo | $478.68/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $507.00/mo | $958.80/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are cost-constrained
Qwen3 Coder Flash
Cheaper on blended list price at $0.390 per million tokens.
Qwen3 Coder Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro FAQ
Which is better, Qwen3 Coder Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Qwen3 Coder Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Qwen3 Coder Flash does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is Qwen3 Coder Flash cheaper than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Qwen3 Coder Flash is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Qwen3 Coder Flash lists at $0.390 per million tokens and MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.544 — Qwen3 Coder Flash is 39% cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Qwen3 Coder Flash charges $0.195 in and $0.975 out, MiMo-V2.6-Pro charges $0.435 and $0.870 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does Qwen3 Coder Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro have a bigger context window?
They are effectively the same — 1M for Qwen3 Coder Flash and 1.1M for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
Do Qwen3 Coder Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.039 per million for Qwen3 Coder Flash and $0.0036 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro, against full input rates of $0.195 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.