Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 5.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 57.6 to 42.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 74.1% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | 74.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 42.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| CritPt | 4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.24 |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1465 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
Multilingual Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1438 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 5.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 47.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.