Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 39.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 45.5% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2025-12-16 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 25.9% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | 1473 |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 9.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | 1460 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 24% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 84% |
| LMCA | — | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.37 |
Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | 1467 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1429 | 1473 |
| LMArena German | 1395 | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | 1457 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | 1440 |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | 1455 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.
Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (36.1 vs 36.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.