MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
Xiaomi · China | StepFun · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash for same natively omnimodal design as pro (text, image, video, audio) at a fraction of the size and price or 309b total parameters, 15b active per token (sparse moe) — a hybrid attention mechanism for efficiency. Pick Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows or scmp reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from deepseek and moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size. On a tight budget at scale, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the value pick.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash (Xiaomi) and Step 3.7 Flash (StepFun) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is xiaomi's efficient omnimodal MoE model — 309B parameters, 15B active, MIT-licensed, priced at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens. Step 3.7 Flash is stepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Price: MiMo-V2.6-Flash is about 1.4× cheaper on input ($0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens) — modest, but it adds up at steady volume.
- ▸Context window: MiMo-V2.6-Flash holds 4× more — 1M tokens (~1,573 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the newer model by about 4 months (released September 21, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi (China) | StepFun (China) |
| Released | September 21, 2026 | May 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M tokens (~1,573 pages) | 256K (~393 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens | $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, image, video, audio | text, image, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | Not published |
Who wins what
Same natively omnimodal design as Pro (text, image, video, audio) at a fraction of the size and price
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
At $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens it undercuts Step 3.7 Flash ($0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
309B total parameters, 15B active per token (sparse MoE) — a hybrid attention mechanism for efficiency
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Its 1M tokens window holds about 4× more than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K in a single prompt.
MIT-licensed, self-hostable, and among the cheapest omnimodal options at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi's efficient omnimodal MoE model — 309B parameters, 15B active, MIT-licensed, priced at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens — and it runs cheaper at $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens.
A 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash lists a 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows among its strengths; MiMo-V2.6-Flash does not.
SCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size
Step 3.7 Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is comparatively weak here — same caveat as Pro: benchmark claims are largely self-reported by Xiaomi at launch, not yet independently verified at scale
Open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price
Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash lists open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price among its strengths; MiMo-V2.6-Flash does not.
Lowest cost at scale
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
At $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Its 1M tokens window is about 4× larger than Step 3.7 Flash's 256K, fitting roughly 1,573 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ MiMo-V2.6-Flash
At $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens it undercuts Step 3.7 Flash, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is same natively omnimodal design as pro (text, image, video, audio) at a fraction of the size and price
→ MiMo-V2.6-Flash
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows
→ Step 3.7 Flash
That is its strongest area.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: where it fits
Xiaomi's efficient omnimodal MoE model — 309B parameters, 15B active, MIT-licensed, priced at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens. Released September 21, 2026 by Xiaomi, it is built for same natively omnimodal design as Pro (text, image, video, audio) at a fraction of the size and price, 309B total parameters, 15B active per token (sparse MoE) — a hybrid attention mechanism for efficiency, and mIT-licensed, self-hostable, and among the cheapest omnimodal options at $0.14/$0.28 per million tokens.
Its trade-offs are real: lower capacity than Pro — expect a real quality gap on the hardest reasoning and generation tasks, and same caveat as Pro: benchmark claims are largely self-reported by Xiaomi at launch, not yet independently verified at scale. At $0.14 in / $0.28 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Step 3.7 Flash: where it fits
StepFun's 198B MoE vision-language model built for coding and search agents - a distinct Chinese lab with genuinely competitive open weights. Released May 29, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for a 198B-parameter sparse MoE vision-language model (11B active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, sCMP reported it 'outshines larger rivals' from DeepSeek and Moonshot on some benchmarks despite its smaller active size, open weights (Apache 2.0) at a low per-token price, and includes a 1.8B vision encoder for image understanding alongside text.
Its trade-offs: stepFun is a newer, less established lab than DeepSeek, Alibaba, or Moonshot, benchmark 'outshines rivals' claims are from press coverage of specific tests, not a full independent leaderboard sweep, and smaller ecosystem and less third-party documentation than the more established Chinese labs. At $0.2 in / $1.15 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash overlap enough that the right pick depends on your specific job. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs less per token; MiMo-V2.6-Flash holds the larger context; and each leads in its own area — MiMo-V2.6-Flash for same natively omnimodal design as pro (text, image, video, audio) at a fraction of the size and price, Step 3.7 Flash for a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows. Rather than crowning one, run the same hard task through both once and let the results decide.
Want both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Step 3.7 Flash better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, MiMo-V2.6-Flash leans toward same natively omnimodal design as pro (text, image, video, audio) at a fraction of the size and price while Step 3.7 Flash leans toward a 198b-parameter sparse moe vision-language model (11b active) built specifically for agentic coding and search workflows, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper — $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens vs $0.2/$1.15 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.4× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 4× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Step 3.7 Flash together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you MiMo-V2.6-Flash, Step 3.7 Flash and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Step 3.7 Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash — released September 21, 2026, about 4 months after Step 3.7 Flash.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.