Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Omni Xiaomi

43.6

Rank #88 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where MiMo-V2-Omni leads 29.7 to 20.2.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2-Omni accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.639.2
Released2026-03-182025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.14$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.28$2.80
Results tracked1826

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 43.3 (#89), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Coding14661358
Aider Polyglot—40%
SciCode—35.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 29.7 (#88), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14451334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.1 (#115), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Math14301399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%

Knowledge Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Omni: 40.5 (#118), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Expert14491362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Omni: 38.6 (#63), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1228—

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 51.8 (#102), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14041317
LMArena Chinese14651357
LMArena German13991341
LMArena Russian14121311
LMArena French1447—
LMArena Japanese1317—
LMArena Korean1355—
LMArena Spanish1434—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.2 (#66), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14281305

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#76), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14421327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Omni leads

MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.4 (#87), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-OmniQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14231340
LMArena Creative Writing13921297
LMArena Multi-Turn14451331

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Omni better than Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2-Omni is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Omni scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.3 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Omni does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Omni and Qwen3 32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Omni has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper