Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 16.2.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 7 |
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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1468 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | — |
| LMArena French | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.