Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

40.8

Rank #137 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 32.9 to 24.1.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.14 input and $0.28 output per million tokens.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.842.3
Released2025-12-162026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K1M
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.40
Results tracked2132

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.8 (#205), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev13301243
LMArena Coding14431412
ALE-Bench737.95221.8
SciCode25.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.1 (#155), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts14201404
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 35.6 (#141), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math13961407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.1 (#126), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert14251408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.1 (#109), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English13911385
LMArena Chinese14631446
LMArena French14291412
LMArena German13951389
LMArena Japanese13241369
LMArena Korean13581344
LMArena Russian13871379
LMArena Spanish14201399

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.7 (#115), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13921374

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#106), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14091392

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.9 (#101), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14111397
LMArena Creative Writing13751343
LMArena Multi-Turn14041393

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

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

MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

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

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper