Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 44.3 to 35.3.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 33.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 10 |
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), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.45 |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1477 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.5-9B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 35.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5-9B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.