Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.0

Rank #123 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 43.8 to 33.8.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $2 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.042.0
Released2026-03-182026-02-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2
Results tracked2328

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.8 (#251)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena WebDev14331254
LMArena Coding14761410
SciCode—29.3%
ALE-Bench785.17—

Reasoning Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 24.6 (#161)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Hard Prompts14571400
NYT Connections (extended)25.8%—
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles—10%
Thematic Generalization45.9%—
DTBench—80%
LMCA—29.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—142.52

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 39.9 (#97)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Math14471404
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.8 (#79)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Expert14781408
GPQA Diamond—83.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.0 (#127)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English14161378
LMArena Chinese14561457
LMArena French14691412
LMArena German14171367
LMArena Japanese13661325
LMArena Korean14001356
LMArena Russian14271376
LMArena Spanish14571392

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 72.8 (#128)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following14451379

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#127)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query14551389
CL-bench15.7%—
CL-bench Life6.9%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 57.9 (#124)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text14361395
LMArena Creative Writing14151346
LMArena Multi-Turn14561390

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $2.

Is MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper