Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3-1.7B
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 38.3 to 16.3.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-16 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| SciCode | 25.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | — |
Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1396 | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena French | 1429 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3-1.7B?
MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.