Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.14 | $0.14 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.28 | $0.28 |
Verdict. MiMo-V2.5 takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 7–0 across 7 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, MiMo-V2.5 is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). MiMo-V2.5 makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) is strongest on GPQA Diamond (72%), IFBench (47%), SciCode (37%). MiMo-V2.5 leads on GPQA Diamond (85%), IFBench (67%), Coding Index (56.8).
Speed. On throughput, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) generates tokens at 113 tok/s versus 74 tok/s — about 35% faster. On time-to-first-token, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) responds in 991ms vs 3348ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. DeepSeek and Xiaomi sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: DeepSeek tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Xiaomi often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) costs $8.40 ($101/year); MiMo-V2.5 costs $8.40 ($101/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) ≈ $1.26/run, MiMo-V2.5 ≈ $1.26/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) ≈ $56/run, MiMo-V2.5 ≈ $56/run.
Recommendation. If you want one safe default, take MiMo-V2.5 — it dominates the benchmark table and the latency profile is 1.5× faster. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) only makes sense when you specifically need its pricing tier, an existing contract, or a feature difference that is not measured by the benchmarks above.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.
MiMo-V2.5 wins 7 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) generates tokens faster at 113 tok/s vs 74 tok/s. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) also has lower time-to-first-token (0.99s vs 3.35s).
Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, MiMo-V2.5 for stronger benchmark performance, and DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.