Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 61.6 to 43.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 70% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro and 26% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- 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 | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 33 |
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), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 60.9% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 26.6% | 13.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1483 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| DTBench | — | 92.3% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 153.68 |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 70% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1488 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3.7 Max: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1484 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1460 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 50.4 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 Qwen3.7 Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.