Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 36.5 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 51.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and 35.4% for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.539.2
Released2026-09-212025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.80
Results tracked1926

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), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
SciCode51.3%35.4%
LMArena Coding15041358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1637—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
CritPt12%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
Chess Puzzles—5%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Math14681399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
ProofBench63%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Expert15011362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14341317
LMArena Chinese15111357
LMArena Russian14091311
LMArena French1475—
LMArena German—1341
LMArena Spanish1456—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14631305

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14631327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14551340
LMArena Creative Writing14001297
LMArena Multi-Turn14511331

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper