Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 39.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 40.7% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2025-12-16 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 25.9% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 2.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1449 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| DTBench | — | 81.9% |
| LMCA | — | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.65 |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | 1454 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1425 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1438 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 6.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6 Plus?
MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.