Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 44.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Max in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.3 to 37.4.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- 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-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 51.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.3 (#68), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1483 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| DTBench | — | 92.3% |
| LMCA | — | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 153.74 |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1488 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3.7 Max: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1482 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1460 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1484 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | 1450 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 44.4 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 44.3 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 Qwen3.7 Max share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.