Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 36.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 51.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and 45.5% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 51.3% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1473 |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | 9.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1460 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 84% |
| LMCA | — | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.37 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1467 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.9% |
Multimodal Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | 1473 |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | 1457 |
| LMArena German | — | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1415 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1440 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1455 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
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 Qwen3.7 Plus share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.