Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

44.4

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash leads 44.3 to 33.9.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.14 input and $0.28 output per million tokens.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.442.3
Released2026-09-222026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.40
Results tracked1332

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-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding15161412
LMArena WebDev—1243
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts14811404
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math14771407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert15161408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision1266—

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English14391385
LMArena Chinese15011446
LMArena Russian14241379
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1389
LMArena Japanese—1369
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Spanish—1399

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14631374

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14651392

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14591397
LMArena Creative Writing14081343
LMArena Multi-Turn14601393

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper