Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

31.9

Rank #267 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 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 19.3.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $5.60 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct specifications
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.531.9
Released2026-09-212024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$5.60
Results tracked1943

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 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Coding15041292
LMArena WebDev1637—
SciCode51.3%—
WeirdML—16%
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.8%
BigCodeBench Complete—55.9%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
TheAgentCompany—5.7%
BALROG—16.2%
METR Time Horizons—35.8%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14821271
CritPt12%—
DTBench—62.9%
LMCA—13.4%
BIG-Bench Hard—79.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—129
ForecastBench—57.5
HellaSwag—84.8%
PIQA—82.6%
WinoGrande—82.3%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Math14681283
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—8.1%
ProofBench63%—
Omni-MATH—33%
MATH Level 5—63.2%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Expert15011245
GPQA Diamond—49.1%
MMLU-Pro—63.1%
Confabulations—19.1%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—94.5%
MMLU—85.3%
TriviaQA—71.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English14341252
LMArena Chinese15111272
LMArena French14751280
LMArena Russian14091264
LMArena Spanish14561256
LMArena German—1234
LMArena Japanese—1180
LMArena Korean—1188

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14631254
IFEval—80.6%

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14631282

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text14551269
LMArena Creative Writing14001221
LMArena Multi-Turn14511272
WildBench—80.2%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 72B 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 72B Instruct lists at $1.40 and $5.60.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 33.2 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 72B Instruct share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper