Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen-14B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.1 to 27.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1027 |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1068 |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1031 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen-14B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen-14B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.