Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3 8B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

44.4

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.3

Rank #237 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 29.6 to 16.1.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $0.70 for Qwen3 8B.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3 8B specifications
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.433.3
Released2026-09-222025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.18
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.70
Results tracked1311

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 8B: 33.4 (#245)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
SciCode—22.6%
LMArena Coding1516—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: —, Qwen3 8B: 29.9 (#71)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), Qwen3 8B: 16.1 (#299)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts1481—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—136.17

Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), Qwen3 8B: 33.3 (#176)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—56.1%
LMArena Math1477—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#164)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
GPQA Diamond—56.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.8%
LMArena Expert1516—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), Qwen3 8B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
LMArena Vision1266—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), Qwen3 8B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
LMArena Non-English1439—
LMArena Chinese1501—
LMArena Russian1424—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), Qwen3 8B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1463—

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), Qwen3 8B: 37.8 (#205)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1465—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), Qwen3 8B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 8B
LMArena Text1459—
LMArena Creative Writing1408—
LMArena Multi-Turn1460—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3 8B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3 8B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 8B lists at $0.18 and $0.70.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3 8B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper