Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 47.0 to 36.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 50.2% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 35.8% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Both cost about the same: $0.43 input and $0.87 output per million tokens.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.8 | 37.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.0 (#58), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 36.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | 35.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1477 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1502 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 21.9 (#126)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 25.9 (#124), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 27.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | 41.6% |
| CritPt | 4% | 0.3% |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 73.9% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 29.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1487 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.92 |
Math Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 38.6 (#84), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.9 (#90)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1480 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 41.5 (#100), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.3 (#33), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1489 | — |
| LMArena German | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.6 (#21), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#38), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.5 (#47), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.0 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.