Two cheap multimodal models, one built for long media inputs and one for retention-friendly speed.
MiMo V2.6 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash VL are budget multimodal models: both read pictures and video, support tools, and cost well under a dollar per million tokens. The trade is context and retention terms.
MiMo V2.6 Flash has 309B parameters with 15B active, a million-token window and a $0.28 price, and Xiaomi describes it as handling pictures, video and sound. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has 124B parameters with 5.5B active, a 131k window, a $0.18 price and zero data retention.
At a glance
| Spec | MiMo V2.6 Flash | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Xiaomi | inclusionAI |
| Parameters | 309B | 124B |
| Active per token | 15B | 5.5B |
| Context window | 1M (750,000 words) | 131k (100,000 words) |
| Upstream price / MTok | $0.28 | $0.18 |
| Image and video input | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Zero data retention | No | Yes |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Good at | Cheap, quick answers about pictures, video and sound | Very cheap picture and video reading |
Where MiMo V2.6 Flash pulls ahead
- A million-token context versus 131k, which matters for long video transcripts and media-heavy archives.
- A larger model at 309B parameters, with Xiaomi describing support for pictures, video and sound.
- A cheap way to keep very long multimodal conversations in one window.
Where Ling 3.0 Flash VL pulls ahead
- Price: $0.18 versus $0.28 per million tokens, about 36% cheaper.
- Zero data retention, which MiMo V2.6 Flash does not list.
- Only 5.5B active parameters per token, making it very cheap for high-volume image and video reading.
The price difference
MiMo V2.6 Flash costs $0.28 per million tokens against $0.18 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL — about 1.6x more. On UsingOpen you can chat with both for free inside the daily limit, so the rate is a fair proxy for how expensive each model is to run rather than a bill you pay here. Multiply it by your monthly token volume if you are comparing API access elsewhere.
Which should you choose?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better value for short media: cheaper, lighter and covered by zero-retention terms. For screenshots, short clips and everyday vision questions, it is hard to beat.
MiMo V2.6 Flash is the choice when the media is long. A million-token window lets a transcript or a stack of frames stay in one conversation, and the price is still low. The missing ZDR is the trade-off.
Chat with MiMo V2.6 Flash free · Chat with Ling 3.0 Flash VL free
Frequently asked questions
Which has the larger context window, MiMo V2.6 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
MiMo V2.6 Flash is listed at 1M (750,000 words); Ling 3.0 Flash VL is listed at 131k (100,000 words). MiMo V2.6 Flash can hold more in one conversation, which matters for long codebases, archives and multi-hour agent runs.
Can both MiMo V2.6 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash VL read images?
Yes. Both models accept image input, so a screenshot or diagram is fair game in either. The decision should turn on context window, price, retention terms and how each model answers your own prompts.
Is MiMo V2.6 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash VL better for coding?
Neither is positioned as a coding specialist: MiMo V2.6 Flash is tuned for cheap, quick answers about pictures, video and sound and Ling 3.0 Flash VL for very cheap picture and video reading. For serious coding work, start with a model such as DeepSeek V4 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash instead.
Which is cheaper, MiMo V2.6 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is listed at $0.18 per million tokens against $0.28 for MiMo V2.6 Flash — about 1.6x cheaper. Both are free to chat with on UsingOpen inside the daily limit when live; the rates matter if you are comparing what API access would cost.
Can I chat with MiMo V2.6 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash VL for free?
Yes. Both are selectable on UsingOpen without an account when they are live, and each user gets 10 free prompts per day. A model paused for capacity is unavailable until it returns; the picker shows live status. History stays on your device, and Compare mode can send one prompt to both models side by side.
Which model has the longer context window?
MiMo V2.6 Flash has a one-million-token window, roughly 750,000 words. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has 131k tokens, roughly 100,000 words. For long transcripts or media archives, MiMo is the clearer fit.
Which one offers zero data retention?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is listed with zero data retention; MiMo V2.6 Flash is not. ZDR describes the provider's retention terms, so Ling is the better pick when the material is sensitive.
Related comparisons
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL — NVIDIA's fast text specialist against inclusionAI's cheap multimodal tool user.
- MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash — Xiaomi's flagship against Alibaba's cheaper fast multimodal model.
- Qwen3.8 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B — Two fast multimodal models, one with a million-token window and one with zero-retention terms.