Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 24.9.
  • Both cost about the same: $0.14 input and $0.28 output per million tokens.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.342.5
Released2025-12-162026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K1M
Max output66K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$0.40
Results tracked2132

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev13301244
LMArena Coding14431412
ALE-Bench737.95221.8
SciCode25.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Flash: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts14201403
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math13961407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert14251407
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English13921385
LMArena Chinese14621446
LMArena French14291412
LMArena German13951390
LMArena Japanese13251368
LMArena Korean13581344
LMArena Russian13871379
LMArena Spanish14201400

Instruction Following Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13921374

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14091392

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14111397
LMArena Creative Writing13751343
LMArena Multi-Turn14041393

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Flash better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.3 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

Is MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Flash has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper