Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3-1.7B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 26.6 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 16.3.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1468 | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3-1.7B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.