Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen1.5-72B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 43.5 to 11.5.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 22 |
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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1165 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | — |
| SciCode | 60.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen1.5-72B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1148 |
| CritPt | 26.6% | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1164 |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen1.5-72B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1186 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1104 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1141 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen1.5-72B?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen1.5-72B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.