# MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

> MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-6-pro-vs-qwen3-235b-a22b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 43.1 to 15.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 26.6% for MiMo-V2.6-Pro and 0% for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 43.5 |
| Rank | 49 | 91 |
| Context | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 60.9% | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1445 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 59.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 41% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 52.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | -11.34 |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 26.6% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1433 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 1.3% |
| SimpleBench | — | 31% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 69.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 11% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 9% |
| DTBench | — | 80.3% |
| LMCA | — | 29.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.85 |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.7 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1432 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 71.8% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 68.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 8.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1463 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 80.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 40.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 84.4% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 72.7% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1409 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1481 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1411 |
| LMArena French | — | 1445 |
| LMArena German | — | 1433 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1399 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1391 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1430 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1408 |
| IFEval | — | 83.5% |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1426 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 75% |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33)
- Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1419 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1432 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 83% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1366 |
| WildBench | — | 86.6% |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 235B-A22B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 44.3 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 235B-A22B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.