Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen Plus

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 54.5 to 23.3.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.337.1
Released2026-09-212024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.20
Results tracked1920

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Coding15341328
LMArena WebDev1629—
SciCode60.9%—
ALE-Bench1,158—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen Plus: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
APEX-Agents59.5%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts15121317
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.3%
CritPt26.6%—
DTBench—81.1%
LMCA—24%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Math14941326
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—17.8%
ProofBench70%—
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1.7%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Expert15431328
GPQA Diamond—48.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen Plus: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Vision1264—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Non-English14741310
LMArena Chinese15291347
LMArena Russian14801323
LMArena Japanese—1251

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14931303

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query15011324

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Text14921326
LMArena Creative Writing14681293
LMArena Multi-Turn14641336

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen Plus better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen Plus share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper