# MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3 14B

> MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-6-pro-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 53.2 to 36.7.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.7 | 35.0 |
| Rank | 55 | 222 |
| Context | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | $1.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27)
- Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1538 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: —
- Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1511 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91)
- Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1497 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85)
- Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1548 | — |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1265 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1532 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1481 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1490 | — |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1500 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1463 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

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

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3 14B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.