Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.1 | $0.1 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.3 | $0.3 |
Verdict. MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) wins the overall benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Step 3.5 Flash is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Step 3.5 Flash makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (20.8). Step 3.5 Flash leads on Intelligence Index (16.6).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. Xiaomi and StepFun sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Xiaomi tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while StepFun 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): MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) costs $7.50 ($90/year); Step 3.5 Flash costs $7.50 ($90/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) ≈ $1.10/run, Step 3.5 Flash ≈ $1.10/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) ≈ $50/run, Step 3.5 Flash ≈ $50/run.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
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-Flash (Reasoning) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Step 3.5 Flash. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Step 3.5 Flash generates tokens faster at 148 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Step 3.5 Flash has lower time-to-first-token (3.43s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Step 3.5 Flash for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.