Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.8 vs 41.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

40.8

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.6

Rank #120 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 7 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 35.6% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $3.20 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.841.6
Released2025-12-162026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$3.20
Results tracked2127

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.8 (#205), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#155)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena WebDev13301360
SciCode25.9%35.6%
LMArena Coding14431436
ALE-Bench737.95—

Reasoning Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.1 (#155), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 26.4 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
CritPt0%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14201421
NYT Connections (extended)—51.7%
Thematic Generalization—51.2%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84.3%
LMCA—32.2%

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.6 (#141), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 36.4 (#114)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Math13961432

Knowledge Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.1 (#126), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.2 (#138)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Expert14251431
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.2%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.0 (#52)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Vision—1245

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.1 (#109), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.8 (#101)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Non-English13911400
LMArena Chinese14631462
LMArena French14291442
LMArena German13951425
LMArena Japanese13241364
LMArena Korean13581353
LMArena Russian13871400
LMArena Spanish14201423

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.7 (#115), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 74.0 (#109)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Instruction Following13921399

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#106), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#105)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Longer Query14091410

Writing & Preference Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.9 (#101), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.2 (#98)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5 122B-A10B
LMArena Text14111417
LMArena Creative Writing13751369
LMArena Multi-Turn14041416

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.8 vs 41.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 122B-A10B lists at $0.40 and $3.20.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.8 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper