Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.0 to 44.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.1 to 37.4.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- 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 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 56.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 38 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68), Qwen3.8 Max: 52.3 (#30)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | 1499 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1671 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 15.8% |
| SciCode | — | 52.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 42.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1493 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| DTBench | — | 92% |
| LMCA | — | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.69 |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.1 (#15)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1498 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#25)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1504 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3.8 Max: 36.9 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.6 (#18)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1468 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | 1537 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | — | 1502 |
| LMArena German | — | 1489 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1466 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1467 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1495 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.7 (#19)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1478 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.5 (#30)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1486 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.0 (#31)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | 1480 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | 1478 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1487 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.0 to 44.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.3 versus 44.3 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 Qwen3.8 Max share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 38.