Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen1.5-7B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.4 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 Qwen1.5-7B 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 29.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 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: 53.4 (#30), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1107 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1065 |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1080 |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1055 |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen1.5-7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1058 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1090 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1083 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1062 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen1.5-7B?
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 Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen1.5-7B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.