Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 55.5 to 34.2.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | 221.8 |
| SciCode | 60.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1403 |
| CritPt | 26.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1446 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1379 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1400 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1374 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.