Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.2

Rank #95 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 51.9 to 39.0.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.543.2
Released2026-09-212025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.80
Results tracked1918

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-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding15041439
LMArena WebDev1637—
SciCode51.3%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts14821428
CritPt12%—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Math14681426
ProofBench63%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert15011442

Multimodal Too close to call

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision12591247

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English14341405
LMArena Chinese15111463
LMArena French14751452
LMArena Russian14091408
LMArena Spanish14561428
LMArena German—1424
LMArena Japanese—1385
LMArena Korean—1394

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following14631406

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query14631420

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14551420
LMArena Creative Writing14001366
LMArena Multi-Turn14511428

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper