Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen1.5-32B
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 39.7 to 13.5.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 30.5 |
| 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 | 21 |
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), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1155 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1130 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1155 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | 1089 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1116 |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1146 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen1.5-32B?
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen1.5-32B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.