Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs QwQ-32B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads 63.9 to 50.9.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.4 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.28 | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1516 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 29.6 (#82), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1326 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 37.4 (#97), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 42.0 (#91), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 40.2 (#39), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1266 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 54.6 (#41), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1501 | 1378 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1297 |
| LMArena French | — | 1337 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1278 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1353 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 77.0 (#33), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1463 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 44.8 (#52), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1465 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads
MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 63.9 (#61), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1459 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1408 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash better than QwQ-32B?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.4 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash or QwQ-32B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Flash and QwQ-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 13 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.