Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 7.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.2

Rank #95 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B in 8 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads 42.4 to 36.1.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.343.2
Released2025-12-162025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output66K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.80
Results tracked2118

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding14431439
LMArena WebDev1330—
SciCode25.9%—
ALE-Bench737.95—

Reasoning Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts14201428
CritPt0%—

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Math13961426

Knowledge Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert14251442

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision—1247

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English13921405
LMArena Chinese14621463
LMArena French14291452
LMArena German13951424
LMArena Japanese13251385
LMArena Korean13581394
LMArena Russian13871408
LMArena Spanish14201428

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following13921406

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query14091420

Writing & Preference Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14111420
LMArena Creative Writing13751366
LMArena Multi-Turn14041428

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Flash costs 7.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper