Hy3 preview vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: which should you choose in 2026?
Hy3 preview (by Tencent) 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.
Hy3 preview is about 1.9× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.285 vs $0.54375 per 1M tokens).
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Choose Hy3 preview if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need image inputs
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.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Hy3 preview | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
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 | — | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Hy3 preview | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Tencent | Xiaomi |
| API provider | Tencent | Xiaomi |
| Input context | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 235,929 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Apr 22, 2026 | Sep 21, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.18 | $0.435 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.60 | $0.87 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $0.285 | $0.54375 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not 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 Hy3 preview from Tencent with MiMo-V2.6-Pro from Xiaomi? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Hy3 preview | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Hy3 preview vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro FAQ
Which is better, Hy3 preview or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Hy3 preview is about 1.9× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.285 vs $0.54375 per 1M tokens). MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Hy3 preview is about 1.9× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.285 vs $0.54375 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 262,144 tokens).
Can I switch between Hy3 preview 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.
Related comparisons
More Hy3 preview comparisons
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
Grok 4.7
xAI
Grok 4.7 is SpaceXAI's flagship model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, succeeding Grok 4.6.
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Prism ml
Bonsai 2 27B is a 27B-parameter reasoning model from PrismML derived from Qwen3.8-27B.
GLM 5.3 FlashX
Z.AI
GLM-5.3-FlashX is the high-speed variant of Z.ai's GLM-5.3-Flash, a native multimodal model delivering inference speeds of up to 200 tokens/s.
Fugu Ultra v2
Sakana AI
Fugu Ultra v2 is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
More MiMo-V2.6-Pro comparisons
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is the cost-efficient contributor tier of Meta’s multimodal reasoning model for experimentation, learning, and early-stage agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 is a multimodal reasoning model from Meta for long-running agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a high-efficiency model from Google for coding, agentic workflows, and web and app development.