Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen1.5 4b Chat
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 28.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5 4b Chat in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.9 to 23.9.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 28.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 13 |
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: 44.3 (#68), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 28.6 (#305)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | 999 |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 17.7 (#277)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 976 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 27.9 (#233)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1026 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.2 (#252)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 980 |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.2 (#285)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 979 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | 1024 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 952 |
| LMArena German | — | 902 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.3 (#295)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 979 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#285)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 988 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.9 (#304)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | 997 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | 969 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 977 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen1.5 4b Chat?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 28.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen1.5 4b Chat better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen1.5 4b Chat share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13.