# MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash

> MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 9.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-6-pro-vs-qwen3-7-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 43.0.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.7 | 39.5 |
| Rank | 55 | 152 |
| Context | 1.05M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | $0.03 |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | $0.13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1538 | — |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: 27.3 (#108)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1511 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.62 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: 37.3 (#100)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1497 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#69)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1548 | — |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1265 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1532 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1481 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1490 | — |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1500 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32)
- Qwen3.7 Flash: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1463 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 9.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.