Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5
Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated); MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash and MiMo-V2.5 share 6 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 5 to MiMo-V2.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 6
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 16
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.88 versus 58.62. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Flash's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.2 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 49.1% to 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Δ | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 | Margin→ 16.7 | MiMo-V2.565.8 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2 | Margin← 8.1 | MiMo-V2.556.1 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash38.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.5Not measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | MiMo-V2.579.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 49.1%B 65.8%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 16.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 49.1%B 56.1%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 7SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | MiMo-V2.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | MiMo-V2.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | 65.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 64% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 62.3% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 54.35% | 46.89% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | — | 23.8% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 16.9% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
Math4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
DeepSeek V4 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.88 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 49.1% and 65.8%.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 49.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.