Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen Max

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Max in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 38.3 to 22.3.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen Max specifications
MiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.334.7
Released2025-12-162024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K33K
Max output66K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$6.40
Results tracked2123

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 Max: 30.7 (#292)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Coding14431288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1330—
SciCode25.9%—
ALE-Bench737.95—

Reasoning Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14201269
CritPt0%—

Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Math13961275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Expert14251248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Non-English13921263
LMArena Chinese14621254
LMArena French14291330
LMArena German13951254
LMArena Japanese13251205
LMArena Korean13581142
LMArena Russian13871274
LMArena Spanish14201290

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following13921262

Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14091288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen Max
LMArena Text14111282
LMArena Creative Writing13751248
LMArena Multi-Turn14041277

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen Max?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen Max?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen Max better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper