Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs QwQ-32B

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

50.3

Rank #49 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 55.5 to 35.4.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and QwQ-32B specifications
MiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.339.8
Released2026-09-212024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.43—
Output $ / M tokens$0.87—
Results tracked1936

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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding15341333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1629—
SciCode60.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench1,158—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), QwQ-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
APEX-Agents59.5%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15121325
CritPt26.6%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14941359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
ProofBench70%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert15431324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), QwQ-32B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1264—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14741305
LMArena Chinese15291378
LMArena Russian14801297
LMArena French—1336
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14931297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query15011308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-ProQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14921329
LMArena Creative Writing14681288
LMArena Multi-Turn14641314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than QwQ-32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or QwQ-32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and QwQ-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper