Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen1.5-7B
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-7B 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 29.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 31.4 |
| 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 | 13 |
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), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1107 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1065 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1080 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | 1055 |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1058 |
Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1090 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1083 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1062 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen1.5-7B?
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?
MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen1.5-7B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.