Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 44.8 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 41.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 60.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.8 | 47.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 37 |
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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1477 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 50.2% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1502 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 25.9 (#124), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 4% | 2.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1487 | 1449 |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 33.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 147.67 |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 38.6 (#84), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1480 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 41.5 (#100), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1456 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.3 (#33), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1489 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1455 | 1451 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1418 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1436 | 1381 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | 1432 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.6 (#21), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1425 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#38), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1440 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.5 (#47), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1405 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 44.8 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.0 versus 40.6 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 Qwen3.6 Plus share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.