# MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

> MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash-vs-qwen2-5-7b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 37.4 to 11.8.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 28.6 |
| Rank | 74 | 314 |
| Context | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | $0.17 |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | $0.70 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1477 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.