Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5 Plus

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 46.0 to 42.2.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5 Plus specifications
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.542.9
Released2026-09-212026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.40
Results tracked1915

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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena WebDev1637—
SciCode51.3%—
LMArena Coding1504—
ALE-Bench—621.92

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.5 Plus: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1482—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.78

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
ProofBench63%—
LMArena Math1468—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.7%
LMArena Expert1501—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Non-English1434—
LMArena Chinese1511—
LMArena French1475—
LMArena Russian1409—
LMArena Spanish1456—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1463—

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1463—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1455—
LMArena Creative Writing1400—
LMArena Multi-Turn1451—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 42.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus lists at $0.40 and $2.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper