Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 9.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Flash in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 41.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro and 43.8% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.7 Flash specifications
MiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.039.9
Released2026-03-182026-07-15
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$0.13
Results tracked237

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena WebDev1433—
LMArena Coding1476—
ALE-Bench785.17—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)25.8%43.8%
Chess Puzzles—23%
Thematic Generalization45.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1457—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
Epoch Capabilities Index—144.64

Math MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1447—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
LMArena Expert1478—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1416—
LMArena Chinese1456—
LMArena French1469—
LMArena German1417—
LMArena Japanese1366—
LMArena Korean1400—
LMArena Russian1427—
LMArena Spanish1457—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1445—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
CL-bench15.7%—
CL-bench Life6.9%—
LMArena Longer Query1455—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1436—
LMArena Creative Writing1415—
LMArena Multi-Turn1456—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 9.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper