# DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL (slim)

> DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL score within a point of each other for open-weight models you run yourself, 61.5 and 61 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-mimo-v2-6-flash-rl.md (~10,300 tokens) · this version ~830 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-mimo-v2-6-flash-rl.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-mimo-v2-6-flash-rl
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-10
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61.5 (C) and 61 (C). MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: C 61.5, rank #35 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/deepseek-v4-1-flash.min.md
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL: C 61, rank #75 of 160 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/mimo-v2-6-flash-rl.min.md
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, good for Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback. Ahead on Risk, 50 against 45.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL, good for Teams with a GPU server, or a provider account, that want an open agent model with a very long context Ahead on Reach, 65 against 60; Agent interface, 85 against 75; Documentation and upkeep, 59 against 48.

| Category | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 60 | 65 |
| Risk (20%) | 50 | 45 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 75 | 85 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 48 | 59 |

| Fact (where they differ) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | Xiaomi (MiMo team) |
| Licence | MIT | MIT (metadata only, no LICENSE file) |
| Last release | 2026-10-17 | 2026-10-28 |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |

Why the edge:
- Documentation and upkeep, MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL +11: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 48 (The cards cover architecture, parameters and context but not intended use, limitations, languages or a cut-off, so 8. Training data is a general description wit…); MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL 59 (Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters, the context and the languages (in the metadata) are on the card.)
- Agent interface, MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL +10: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 75 (There's no Jinja template in the 17 October repository, only code to run, so the template line gets 10. DeepSeek documents the DSML tool format both ways and sh…); MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL 85 (Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (3,868 characters), with a copy in tokenizer_config.json.)
- Reach, MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL +5: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 60 (Memory scores nothing, because the only build is DeepSeek's own at 510.3 GB, about 612 GB with the fifth added, and nobody's runtime library holds a smaller one…); MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL 65 (Memory 5, the smallest build at 4 bits or better is ggml-org's MXFP4 GGUF, 168.93 GB with its projector, and 168.93 GB × 1.2 = 202.7 GB, within 256 GB.)
- Risk, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +5: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 50 (The weights are safetensors only, but 10 comes off because the card's way to build prompts is running encoding.py from the repository, since there's no Jinja te…); MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL 45 (File safety 5, the weights are safetensors, but the dflash folder's mask_embedding.pt is a pickle beside them (15).)