Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #236 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 39.7.
  • Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2-Flash.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5-9B specifications
MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.333.8
Released2025-12-162026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.15
Results tracked2110

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
SciCode25.9%27.5%
LMArena WebDev1330—
LMArena Coding1443—
ALE-Bench737.95—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench—9.2%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
CritPt0%0.3%
Chess Puzzles—12%
LMArena Hard Prompts1420—
DTBench—71.2%
LMCA—24.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—139.46

Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—48.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—61.7%
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond—79%
LMArena Expert1425—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
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), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Instruction Following1392—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Longer Query1409—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text1411—
LMArena Creative Writing1375—
LMArena Multi-Turn1404—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3.5-9B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (36.1 vs 35.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5-9B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper