Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

46.7

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.7

Rank #118 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 53.2 to 33.5.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $2 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.741.7
Released2026-09-222026-02-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2
Results tracked1428

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: 53.2 (#27), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.5 (#244)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena WebDev16181254
LMArena Coding15381410
SciCode—29.3%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 23.9 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Hard Prompts15111400
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles—10%
DTBench—80%
LMCA—29.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—142.52

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 38.4 (#86)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Math14971404
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.7 (#73)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Expert15481408
GPQA Diamond—83.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Vision1265—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.2 (#122)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14741379
LMArena Chinese15321458
LMArena Russian14811377
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1367
LMArena Japanese—1326
LMArena Korean—1354
LMArena Spanish—1390

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 73.0 (#123)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14901379

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#122)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query15001390

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 58.1 (#118)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text14911395
LMArena Creative Writing14651347
LMArena Multi-Turn14631391

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 41.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $2.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper