Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen Plus

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 23.3.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.537.1
Released2026-09-212024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$1.20
Results tracked1920

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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Coding15041328
LMArena WebDev1637—
SciCode51.3%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts14821317
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.3%
CritPt12%—
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Math14681326
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—17.8%
ProofBench63%—
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1.7%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Expert15011328
GPQA Diamond—48.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen Plus: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Non-English14341310
LMArena Chinese15111347
LMArena Russian14091323
LMArena French1475—
LMArena Japanese—1251
LMArena Spanish1456—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14631303

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query14631324

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen Plus
LMArena Text14551326
LMArena Creative Writing14001293
LMArena Multi-Turn14511336

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen Plus better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen Plus share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper