Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3 14B

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 43.1 to 18.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 60.9% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro and 31.6% for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.335.5
Released2026-09-212025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.40
Results tracked1912

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), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
SciCode60.9%31.6%
LMArena WebDev1629—
LMArena Coding1534—
ALE-Bench1,158—

Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
APEX-Agents59.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
CritPt26.6%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1512—
DTBench—64%
LMCA—18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
ProofBench70%—
LMArena Math1494—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1543—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Vision1264—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1474—
LMArena Chinese1529—
LMArena Russian1480—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1493—

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1501—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1492—
LMArena Creative Writing1468—
LMArena Multi-Turn1464—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3 14B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper