Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen-14B
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 59.7 to 27.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2025-12-16 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1027 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1031 |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen-14B?
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen-14B better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.