Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen1.5-110B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.9 to 38.1.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 33.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1168 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1185 |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1144 |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1118 |
| LMArena French | — | 1150 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1141 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1158 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen1.5-110B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen1.5-110B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.