Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3-1.7B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 43.0 to 19.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.7 | 26.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1538 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76), Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1511 | — |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91), Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1497 | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1548 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1265 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1532 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1481 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1490 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1500 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1463 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3-1.7B?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.