Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen1.5-14B
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 59.7 to 33.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2025-12-16 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 17 |
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), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1138 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1113 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1125 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1102 |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen1.5-14B?
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen1.5-14B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.