# MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen1.5-14B

> MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-6-pro-vs-qwen1-5-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 66.8 to 33.6.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 32.7 |
| Rank | 49 | 253 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1138 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | — |
| SciCode | 60.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
- Qwen1.5-14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1113 |
| CritPt | 26.6% | — |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1125 |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1094 |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
- Qwen1.5-14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1147 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1046 |
| LMArena French | — | 1116 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1102 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1113 |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1110 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen1.5-14B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen1.5-14B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.