Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3.5-Flash

MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.9 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Omni Xiaomi

42.9

Rank #91 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2-Omni leads 42.7 to 33.9.
  • 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.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.942.3
Released2026-03-182026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window262K1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.40
Results tracked1832

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 42.7 (#87), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding14671412
LMArena WebDev—1243
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 28.6 (#86), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts14451404
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-Omni: 36.4 (#112), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math14321407
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-Omni: 39.9 (#114), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert14491408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 37.9 (#62), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision1228—

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 52.0 (#97), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English14041385
LMArena Chinese14691446
LMArena French14481412
LMArena German13981389
LMArena Japanese13181369
LMArena Korean13551344
LMArena Russian14121379
LMArena Spanish14321399

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.4 (#62), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14281374

Long Context MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#72), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14421392

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.6 (#83), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14241397
LMArena Creative Writing13931343
LMArena Multi-Turn14461393

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.9 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

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

MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.7 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-Omni and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Omni has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper