Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 51.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 12% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and 20% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 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 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 48.5 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 53.4 (#30), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1637 | 1674 |
| SciCode | 51.3% | 53.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1496 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| DTBench | — | 92% |
| LMCA | — | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.41 |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 63% | 58% |
| LMArena Math | 1468 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1507 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
Multimodal MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1259 | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1511 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1475 | 1503 |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1456 | 1492 |
| LMArena German | — | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1461 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1479 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1451 | 1489 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 48.5 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (53.4 vs 53.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.
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 Qwen3.8 Max share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.