Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

37.6

Rank #201 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.3 to 39.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 35.8% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $1.49 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.337.6
Released2025-12-162026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K262K
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$1.49
Results tracked2114

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
SciCode25.9%35.8%
LMArena WebDev1330—
WeirdML—34.5%
LMArena Coding1443—
ALE-Bench737.95—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
Terminal-Bench—23%

Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
CritPt0%0.3%
NYT Connections (extended)—41.6%
Chess Puzzles—26%
LMArena Hard Prompts1420—
Mystery Game Puzzles—22%
DTBench—73.9%
LMCA—29.7%
Surface Evolver Bench—44.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.93

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—20.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
LMArena Expert1425—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
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), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following1392—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query1409—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Text1411—
LMArena Creative Writing1375—
LMArena Multi-Turn1404—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.2 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper