Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
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 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B 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 37.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 51.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and 35.8% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $1.49 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 14 |
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), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 51.3% | 35.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | 0.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| DTBench | — | 73.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.7% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.93 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1468 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 37.2 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 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.