Navigate
Advertise here

Qwen3.8 Flash Next (low) vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash (medium)

Qwen3.8 Flash Next (low) leads on average score with 8.0 vs 7.9. Qwen3.8 Flash Next (low) has the lower benchmark cost at ~$0.045 vs $0.218. Qwen3.8 Flash Next (low) is faster at 23.66s vs 61.90s, with pass rates of 79.7% vs 66.7%.

Last updated at: 2026-10-05

Compared models

Rank
#96
Total Output Tokens
135,295
Response Time (avg)
23.66s
Total Cost
~$0.045
Rank
#105
Total Output Tokens
631,843
Response Time (avg)
61.90s
Total Cost
$0.218
Recommended model Qwen3.8 Flash Next (low)

It has the best score here (8.0), while costing about 4.9x less than MiMo-V2.6-Flash (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.8 Flash Next Qwen3.8 Flash Next low Release: 2026-10-04 MiMo-V2.6-Flash MiMo-V2.6-Flash medium Release: 2026-09-22
Score 8.0 7.9
Rank #96 #105
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.0 7.9
Attempts 69/69 69/69
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 79.7% 66.7%
Flaky tests 6 6
Total Runs 69 69
Cost per result ~0.299 1.815
Total Cost ~$0.045 $0.218
Input Price N/A $0.140 / 1M
Output Price N/A $0.280 / 1M
Cache Read Price N/A $0.003 / 1M
Cache Write Price N/A N/A
Total Input Tokens 342,163 291,988
Output Tokens 1,518 8,848
Reasoning Tokens 133,777 622,995
Response Time (avg) 23.66s 61.90s
Response Time (max) 166.72s 357.28s
Response Time (total) 544.16s 1423.67s
Parameters 180B total (6B active) 309B total (15B active)
Availability Weights available Open source

Cache prices apply to input tokens. Reads reuse cached prompts; writes store them and can cost extra. Output tokens use the output price.

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#96 Qwen3.8 Flash Next

low
Cost
~$0.002
Time
47.2s
Tokens
5,270 tok

#105 MiMo-V2.6-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.004
Time
61.0s
Tokens
10,798 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.8 Flash Next 10.0 10.0 100.0% 0 29.46s 8,127 397 24,147
MiMo-V2.6-Flash 7.2 5.1 77.8% 2 18.23s 7,422 533 31,521

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair

Ling 3.1 FlashhighvsMiMo-V2.6-FlashmediumQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighvsMiMo-V2.6-FlashmediumGemini 3.8 FlashmediumvsQwen3.8 Flash NextlowGPT-5.4 NanomediumvsQwen3.8 Flash NextlowQwen3.8 Flash NextlowvsGLM 5.3 FlashXmaxMiMo-V2.6-FlashmediumvsGLM 5.3highClaude Fable 5.1highvsQwen3.8 Flash NextlowNemotron 3 UltramediumFree AvailablevsQwen3.8 Flash NextlowGPT-5.4 MinimediumvsQwen3.8 Flash NextlowGPT-5.6 LunahighvsQwen3.8 Flash NextlowQwen3.7 MaxnonevsMiMo-V2.6-FlashmediumClaude Fable 5.1highvsMiMo-V2.6-Flashmedium