Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 43.1 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 26.6% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro and 0.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.339.2
Released2026-09-212025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.80
Results tracked1926

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 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
SciCode60.9%35.4%
LMArena Coding15341358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1629—
ALE-Bench1,158—

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
APEX-Agents59.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
CritPt26.6%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts15121334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
Chess Puzzles—5%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Math14941399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
ProofBench70%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Expert15431362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1264—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14741317
LMArena Chinese15291357
LMArena Russian14801311
LMArena German—1341

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14931305

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query15011327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14921340
LMArena Creative Writing14681297
LMArena Multi-Turn14641331

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 37.7 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 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper