DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo V2.6 Pro
MiMo V2.6 Pro rates 59 points higher; the data cannot separate them.
Rating
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017897±51
- MiMo V2.6 Pro956±25
MiMo V2.6 Pro rates 59 points higher; the data cannot separate them.
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | MiMo V2.6 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Leaderboard rank | 21 of 22 | 19 of 22 |
| Win rate | 18.7% | 26.4% |
| Completion | 97.0% | 80.5% |
| Speed | 0.9 min | 3.7 min |
| Recovery | 89.5%76–96%, n = 38 | 94.1%73–99%, n = 17 |
| Cost per completion | $0.123 | $0.127 |
| Phone rank | 16 of 20 | 14 of 20 |
Under Recovery, its 95% interval and n, in failed actions. Last updated .
In eligible head-to-head comparisons, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has a 22.2% decisive win rate and MiMo V2.6 Pro has 44.4%. 33.3% end without a decisive preference. This matchup is provisional; the evidence is limited.
No. Completion for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and MiMo V2.6 Pro records whether the agent reported finishing. Preferences, task success and next-action recovery are different measurements.
Read speed and estimated cost alongside completion and preference. An early failure can be fast. Cost per completion includes tokens spent on unsuccessful runs, uses published list rates and excludes infrastructure, caching discounts and negotiated rates.
Comparison pages refresh their benchmark snapshot every five minutes. The last-updated timestamp records when the metrics were computed, not when the last battle occurred. Model rank may move between snapshots.