# MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

> MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash-vs-qwen3-5-397b-a17b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 42.0.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 46.0 |
| Rank | 55 | 67 |
| Context | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | $3.60 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | 1400 |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1465 |
| SciCode | 51.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 24.9% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 81.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 84.4% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 97.8% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1448 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 58.9% |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 13% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 65.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 87.5% |
| LMCA | — | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.65 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1454 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 88.9% |
| ProofBench | 63% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1462 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 86.4% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | 1263 |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1500 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | 1429 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | 1441 |
| LMArena German | — | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1426 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1384 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1424 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1442 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1438 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1478 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 42.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.