Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.6 Flash

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 84.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 77.1% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 Flash specifications
MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.238.8
Released2026-04-222026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.13
Results tracked2713

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
ALE-Bench899.8326.4
LMArena WebDev1479—
SciCode50.2%—
LMArena Coding1503—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
DTBench84.5%77.1%
LMCA29.5%31%
SimpleBench—35.2%
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
CritPt4%—
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1488—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.26

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
ProofBench22%—
LMArena Math1481—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
LMArena Expert1503—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1449—
LMArena Chinese1507—
LMArena French1488—
LMArena German1458—
LMArena Japanese1412—
LMArena Korean1437—
LMArena Russian1450—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1465—
LMArena Creative Writing1440—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—
LMArena Multi-Turn1477—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper