Model comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3 Coder Next

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash Xiaomi

48.5

Rank #55 Confirmed

Qwen3 Coder Next Alibaba (Qwen)

34.3

Rank #232 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 53.4 to 36.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 51.3% for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and 32.3% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.12 / $0.80 for Qwen3 Coder Next.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3 Coder Next specifications
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index48.534.3
Released2026-09-212026-02-02
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.80
Results tracked193

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: 53.4 (#30), Qwen3 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
SciCode51.3%32.3%
LMArena WebDev1637—
WeirdML—34.4%
LMArena Coding1504—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 36.5 (#66), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
CritPt12%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1482—

Math Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 51.9 (#52), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
ProofBench63%—
LMArena Math1468—

Knowledge Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.2 (#99), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Expert1501—

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.5 (#47), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.0 (#51), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Non-English1434—
LMArena Chinese1511—
LMArena French1475—
LMArena Russian1409—
LMArena Spanish1456—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 76.8 (#35), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Instruction Following1463—

Long Context Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#57), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Longer Query1463—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.1 (#67), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Text1455—
LMArena Creative Writing1400—
LMArena Multi-Turn1451—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than Qwen3 Coder Next?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.5 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3 Coder Next?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next lists at $0.12 and $0.80.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.4 versus 36.3 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 Coder Next share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper