WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Step 3.7 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-ProWhich Is Better in 2026?

StepFun•
Xiaomi

Step 3.7 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: which should you choose in 2026?

Step 3.7 Flash (by StepFun) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (by Xiaomi) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

Step 3.7 Flash is about 1.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.4375 vs $0.54375 per 1M tokens).

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).

Choose Step 3.7 Flash if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro if…

  • • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

Step 3.7 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro benchmark results
BenchmarkStep 3.7 FlashMiMo-V2.6-Pro
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

——
BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

——
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

——
Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

——
AutoBench

A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench.

Weighted peer-assessment score

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

——
Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

——
Arena preference scores
Arena (Text)

Human preference score

—
1480 ±9
Arena (Code/WebDev)

Human preference score for code and web development

—
1618 ±13

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Sep 27, 2026.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Step 3.7 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro model facts
FeatureStep 3.7 FlashMiMo-V2.6-Pro
Context & model facts
DeveloperStepFunXiaomi
API providerStepFunXiaomi
Input context262,144 tokens1,050,000 tokens
Maximum output230,400 tokens131,072 tokens
Released——
Added to WritingmateMay 28, 2026Sep 21, 2026
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff——
Capabilities
InputsText, Image, VideoText, Image, Video, Audio
OutputsTextText
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
VisionYesYes
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.20$0.435
Output (per 1M tokens)$1.15$0.87
Blended 3:1 input/output$0.4375$0.54375
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

Data sources

  • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

Catalog data last updated Sep 21, 2026.

Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

Comparing Step 3.7 Flash from StepFun with MiMo-V2.6-Pro from Xiaomi? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for Step 3.7 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro
PlanPriceStep 3.7 FlashMiMo-V2.6-ProAI ImagesAI Video
Writingmate Pro
Most popular
$20/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreSora 2, VEO 3.1
Writingmate Ultimate
Power users
$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreSora 2, VEO 3.1
View Plans & Pricing

Step 3.7 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro FAQ

Which is better, Step 3.7 Flash or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Step 3.7 Flash is about 1.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.4375 vs $0.54375 per 1M tokens). MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Step 3.7 Flash is about 1.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.4375 vs $0.54375 per 1M tokens).

Which model supports more context?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window (1,050,000 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).

Can I switch between Step 3.7 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.