Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash

MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.0 vs 42.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 22.1.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.042.5
Released2026-03-182026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$0.40
Results tracked2332

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev14331244
LMArena Coding14761412
ALE-Bench785.17221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts14571403
NYT Connections (extended)25.8%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Thematic Generalization45.9%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math14471407
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-Pro: 41.4 (#111), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert14781407
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English14161385
LMArena Chinese14561446
LMArena French14691412
LMArena German14171390
LMArena Japanese13661368
LMArena Korean14001344
LMArena Russian14271379
LMArena Spanish14571400

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14451374

Long Context Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14551392
CL-bench15.7%—
CL-bench Life6.9%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14361397
LMArena Creative Writing14151343
LMArena Multi-Turn14561393

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.0 vs 42.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro 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-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

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

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

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

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper