Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 35.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 51.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and 27.5% for Qwen3.5-9B.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 33.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 10 |
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), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 51.3% | 27.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.46 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1468 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.5-9B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 35.9 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 Qwen3.5-9B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.