Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.4 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 22.6.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 33K |
| Max output | 131K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 31 |
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-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1251 |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1251 |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.