Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has enough public results to be ranked (#49); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 37.5 to 31.3.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.47 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 and Qwen3.8 Flash specifications
MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.335.5
Released2026-09-212026-08-26
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$0.47
Results tracked191

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena WebDev1629—
SciCode60.9%—
LMArena Coding1534—
ALE-Bench1,158—

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3.8 Flash: 31.3

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
APEX-Agents59.5%—
GDP.pdf—16.6%

Reasoning Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
CritPt26.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1512—

Math Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
ProofBench70%—
LMArena Math1494—

Knowledge Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Expert1543—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Vision1264—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Non-English1474—
LMArena Chinese1529—
LMArena Russian1480—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1493—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1501—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3.8 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3.8 Flash
LMArena Text1492—
LMArena Creative Writing1468—
LMArena Multi-Turn1464—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has enough public results to be ranked (#49); Qwen3.8 Flash does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.47 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

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 Qwen3.8 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Flash has 1.

Related comparisons

Go deeper