Model comparison
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 5.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 57.6 to 43.5.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 131K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 19 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 55.5 (#23), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1629 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| SciCode | 60.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,158 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.5 (#35), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 59.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.1 (#50), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1512 | 1457 |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| CritPt | 26.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 87.2% |
| LMCA | — | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.24 |
Math Too close to call
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1494 | 1465 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| ProofBench | 70% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.5 (#92), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1543 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
Multimodal Not comparable
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.8 (#43), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1264 | — |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 56.9 (#14), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1529 | 1487 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1445 |
| LMArena French | — | 1449 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1454 |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#12), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1493 | 1438 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#27), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1501 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.8 (#33), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1492 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1468 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1456 |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 5.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.