Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen1.5-110B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.1 to 38.0.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 34.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 20 |
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), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1184 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1168 |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1185 |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1144 |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1206 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | 1151 |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | 1142 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1158 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen1.5-110B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen1.5-110B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.