# MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 14B

> MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-flash-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3 14B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 24.9 to 18.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 25.9% for MiMo-V2-Flash and 31.6% for Qwen3 14B.
- MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.3 | 35.5 |
| Rank | 138 | 225 |
| Context | 262K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.14 | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | $0.28 | $1.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)
- Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 25.9% | 31.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1330 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1443 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 737.95 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2-Flash: —
- Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1420 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1396 | — |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)
- Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1425 | — |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena French | 1429 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1325 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1420 | — |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1392 | — |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1375 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | — |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

### Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 14B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.