XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL

One-line: Cost-optimized V2.6 sibling — 309B total / 15B active, ~DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-class agentic scores, native omnimodal, 1M ctx, MIT.

⚠ large — 309B total params; server-class hardware only (see Efficiency). ⚠ Lab-reported numbers (Xiaomi HF card + blog); see Pro-RL note for the benchmaxxing controversy context. Released Sep 21, 2026.

Coding benchmarks

BenchmarkScoreSource
HumanEval——
HumanEval+——
MBPP——
LiveCodeBench——
Aider polyglot——
SWE-bench Verified—not published
SWE-bench Multilingual——
DeepSWE v1.1 (agentic SWE stand-in)67.9lab
ProgramBench26.0lab
MiMo Code Bench (in-house)61.2lab

Agentic / tool-use benchmarks

BenchmarkScoreSource
BFCL——
τ-Bench——
ToolACE——
GAIA——
Toolathlon-Verified73.6lab
AutomationBench v1.0.652.3lab
Terminal Bench 2.187.6lab
Terminal Bench 4.028.8lab
Agents’ Last Exam27.6lab
JobBench61.2lab

Reasoning (context only)

BenchmarkScoreSource
MMLU / MMLU-Pro——
GPQA Diamond——
MATH——
AIME 2026——

Efficiency

  • Active params: 15B (of 309B total; 256 routed experts, 8 active, top-k; 48 layers hybrid full+SWA, 3 MTP next-token-prediction layers)
  • Context length: 1M tokens
  • VRAM (fp16 rough): ~618GB fp16 — NOT consumer-runnable; on-disk ~311GB (fp8/bf16 mix), needs multi-GPU + quant. The “Flash” name means cheaper/smaller than Pro, not local.

What makes it notable

Xiaomi’s own appendix positions Flash as the value pick: DeepSWE v1.1 67.9 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash’s 74.2 and TB2.1 87.6 vs 90.6 (lab table — DeepSeek still edges it on those), but MiMo Flash leads on JobBench (61.2 vs 45.8) and MiMo Code Bench (61.2 vs 60.2). Huge improvement over MiMo-V2.5-Pro (DeepSWE 19.0 → 67.9). Same “You Only RL Once” mixed-reward recipe and 1M-ctx omnimodal stack as Pro, at lower active-param cost per token. Not a realistic local/agent-box model at 309B — the 9B Distill sibling is the local entry point.

See also