Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.2

Rank #95 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 54.5 to 39.0.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.343.2
Released2026-09-212025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.80
Results tracked1918

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-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding15341439
LMArena WebDev1629—
SciCode60.9%—
ALE-Bench1,158—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
APEX-Agents59.5%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts15121428
CritPt26.6%—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Math14941426
ProofBench70%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert15431442

Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision12641247

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English14741405
LMArena Chinese15291463
LMArena Russian14801408
LMArena French—1452
LMArena German—1424
LMArena Japanese—1385
LMArena Korean—1394
LMArena Spanish—1428

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following14931406

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query15011420

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14921420
LMArena Creative Writing14681366
LMArena Multi-Turn14641428

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 42.4 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-VL 235B-A22B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper