Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.5-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 47.0 to 33.9.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.8 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.0 (#58), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1477 | 1243 |
| LMArena Coding | 1502 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | 221.8 |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 25.9 (#124), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1487 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 29.1% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| CritPt | 4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 38.6 (#84), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1480 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 41.5 (#100), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.3 (#33), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1489 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1455 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1418 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1436 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | 1399 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.6 (#21), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1374 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#38), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.5 (#47), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.8 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 3.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.5-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.0 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.