Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.4 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

42.4

Rank #102 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

37.2

Rank #194 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.4 to 40.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro and 41.6% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.43 input and $0.87 output per million tokens.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.437.2
Released2026-03-182026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.49
Results tracked2314

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.4 (#76), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 36.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena WebDev1433—
SciCode—35.8%
WeirdML—34.5%
LMArena Coding1476—
ALE-Bench785.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 21.9 (#126)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
Terminal-Bench—23%

Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 21.3 (#200), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 27.2 (#112)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
NYT Connections (extended)25.8%41.6%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—26%
Thematic Generalization45.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1457—
Mystery Game Puzzles—22%
DTBench—73.9%
LMCA—29.7%
Surface Evolver Bench—44.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.92

Math Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 36.7 (#104), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.9 (#90)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—20.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1447—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 40.8 (#106), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.4 (#63)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
LMArena Expert1479—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.9 (#77), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English1416—
LMArena Chinese1455—
LMArena French1470—
LMArena German1417—
LMArena Japanese1366—
LMArena Korean1401—
LMArena Russian1427—
LMArena Spanish1458—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.2 (#46), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following1444—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#133), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
CL-bench15.7%—
CL-bench Life6.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1455—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.9 (#67), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Text1436—
LMArena Creative Writing1415—
LMArena Multi-Turn1456—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.4 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.

Is MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.4 versus 36.7 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 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper