Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 41.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

44.4

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.6

Rank #120 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 44.3 to 38.8.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $3.20 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.441.6
Released2026-09-222026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$3.20
Results tracked1327

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: 44.3 (#68), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#155)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Coding15161436
LMArena WebDev—1360
SciCode—35.6%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 26.4 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Hard Prompts14811421
NYT Connections (extended)—51.7%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—51.2%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84.3%
LMCA—32.2%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 36.4 (#114)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Math14771432

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.2 (#138)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Expert15161431
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.2%

Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.0 (#52)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Vision12661245

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.8 (#101)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Non-English14391400
LMArena Chinese15011462
LMArena Russian14241400
LMArena French—1442
LMArena German—1425
LMArena Japanese—1364
LMArena Korean—1353
LMArena Spanish—1423

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 74.0 (#109)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Instruction Following14631399

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#105)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Longer Query14651410

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.2 (#98)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Text14591417
LMArena Creative Writing14081369
LMArena Multi-Turn14601416

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 41.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 122B-A10B lists at $0.40 and $3.20.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 38.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper