# MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

> Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 397B-A17B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mimo-v2-pro-vs-qwen3-5-397b-a17b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads 34.5 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 25.8% for MiMo-V2-Pro and 58.9% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.0 | 46.0 |
| Rank | 103 | 67 |
| Context | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.43 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $0.87 | $3.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1433 | 1400 |
| LMArena Coding | 1476 | 1465 |
| ALE-Bench | 785.17 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- MiMo-V2-Pro: —
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 24.9% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 81.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 84.4% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 97.8% |

## Reasoning

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 25.8% | 58.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.9% | 65.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1448 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 13% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 87.5% |
| LMCA | — | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.65 |

## Math

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1454 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 88.9% |

## Knowledge

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1478 | 1462 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 86.4% |

## Multimodal

- MiMo-V2-Pro: —
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |

## Multilingual

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1416 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1456 | 1500 |
| LMArena French | 1469 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1417 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1366 | 1426 |
| LMArena Korean | 1400 | 1384 |
| LMArena Russian | 1427 | 1429 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1457 | 1441 |

## Instruction Following

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1445 | 1424 |

## Long Context

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1442 |
| CL-bench | 15.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 6.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)

| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1436 | 1438 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1415 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1478 |

## FAQ

### Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 43.0 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2-Pro costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 397B-A17B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

### Is MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 42.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.