Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.0 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 43.6 to 33.9.
- Both cost about the same: $0.14 input and $0.28 output per million tokens.
- MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.0 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 43.6 (#75), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | 1243 |
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | 221.8 |
| SciCode | 43.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.5: 27.8 (#98), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1404 |
| CritPt | 3.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5: 35.4 (#145), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.5: 40.2 (#109), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1459 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 39.0 (#53), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 52.0 (#96), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1467 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1304 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1412 | 1399 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 75.7 (#55), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1433 | 1374 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 44.1 (#69), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1444 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 61.8 (#82), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1427 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1392 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.0 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5 lists at $0.14 and $0.28.
Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.