Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 6 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 40.8.
- MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.4 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads
MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1438 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 43.1% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1469 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 513.95 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 3.7% | 2.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1450 | 1449 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.65 |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1436 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1460 | 1454 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1247 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1404 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1468 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1447 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1421 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1306 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1363 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1395 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1416 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1434 | 1425 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1445 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1393 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1438 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 43.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5 costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 40.8 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 Qwen3.6 Plus share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5 has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.