Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 14B

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3 14B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 24.9 to 18.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 31.6% for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 14B specifications
MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.335.5
Released2025-12-162025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output66K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$1.40
Results tracked2112

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
SciCode25.9%31.6%
LMArena WebDev1330—
LMArena Coding1443—
ALE-Bench737.95—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
CritPt0%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1420—
DTBench—64%
LMCA—18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1425—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1392—
LMArena Chinese1462—
LMArena French1429—
LMArena German1395—
LMArena Japanese1325—
LMArena Korean1358—
LMArena Russian1387—
LMArena Spanish1420—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1392—

Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1409—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1411—
LMArena Creative Writing1375—
LMArena Multi-Turn1404—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 14B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper