Qwen3.5-Flash vs MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 leads Qwen3.5-Flash on coding, 50.0 to 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.5-Flash costs 1.3x less per output token ($0.26 vs $0.336 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 44 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3.5-Flash or MiMo-V2.5: which to pick
Pick MiMo-V2.5 for coding: it scores 50.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.1 for Qwen3.5-Flash.
Pick Qwen3.5-Flash for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($0.26 vs $0.336 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or GPQA Diamond, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 44
- Qwen3.5-Flash only
- 11
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 36
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 scores 50.0 against 41.1.
2 and 3 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 21.8.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a AA Agentic Index result, 15.8.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash leads, 82.8% against 81.6%.
Same board, both measured
Math
AIME
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a AIME result, 92.5%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash leads, 84.1% against 82.9%.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only MiMo-V2.5 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1266.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5 takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash $0.0002, MiMo-V2.5 $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
MiMo-V2.5
Qwen3.5-Flash $0.40, MiMo-V2.5 $0.01.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks, MiMo-V2.5 50.0 from 3 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 14.7 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena WebDev: React: Qwen3.5-Flash 1229 against MiMo-V2.5 1425, 32.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 against MiMo-V2.5 $0.336 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3.5-Flash takes 1M tokens, MiMo-V2.5 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Qwen3.5-Flash | Bars | MiMo-V2.5 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 7 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 3 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 6 | 4 | ||
| General | 1 | 18 | ||
| All shared boards | 10 | 34 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index17
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1244 | 1438 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 56.8 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 83.3% | 81.5% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 64.4% | 71.0% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 42.2% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 14.2% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 60.7% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 43.9% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 41.7% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 265.9 | 514.0 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1412 | 1469 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1416 | 1463 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena WebDev: React | 1229 | 1425 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | 1291 | 1429 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 21.8 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.5 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 15.8 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 36.7% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 7.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 9.1% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.1% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 90.6% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 82.8% | 81.6% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 81.9% | 80.0% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 84.9% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.2% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 82.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Chess puzzles | 14.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 20.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1403 | 1450 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1407 | 1459 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1409 | 1461 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1269 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1262 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 92.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 84.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 18.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 16.0% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1407 | 1436 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1413 | 1451 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index64
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 84.1% | 82.9% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 84.3% | 78.9% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 56.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 63.6% | 59.9% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 72.2% | 71.8% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 67.4% | 59.3% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 33.0% | 31.9% | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| SimpleQA Verified | 20.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1415 | 1440 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1407 | 1432 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1398 | 1425 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1394 | 1432 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1266 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1255 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1249 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1250 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1215 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1260 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1180 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1140 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index118
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 42.5% | 43.3% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 70.6% | 72.2% | MiMo-V2.5 |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Not measured | 52.8% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 67.1% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 73.0% | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| DTBench | 82.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMCA | 29.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1428 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1374 | 1435 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1343 | 1393 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1247 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1404 | 1447 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1385 | 1405 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1445 | 1469 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: German | 1390 | 1421 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1369 | 1306 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1344 | 1361 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: French | 1413 | 1448 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1400 | 1414 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1380 | 1396 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1376 | 1413 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1393 | 1445 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1392 | 1445 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1369 | 1409 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1347 | 1399 | MiMo-V2.5 |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1259 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | Not measured | 1326 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1256 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | Not measured | 1226 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: recognizing things | Not measured | 1189 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1230 | Only MiMo-V2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-Flash | MiMo-V2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.5-Flash costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Qwen3.5-Flash | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Xiaomi |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | February 25, 2026 | April 22, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.065 | $0.168 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.26 | $0.336 |
| Coding index | 41.1 | 50.0 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 3 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.40 | $0.01 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3.5-Flash better than MiMo-V2.5 for coding?
Pick MiMo-V2.5 for coding: it scores 50.0 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.1 for Qwen3.5-Flash. Pick Qwen3.5-Flash for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($0.26 vs $0.336 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or GPQA Diamond, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 per million input tokens and $0.26 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.168 and $0.336. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.40 and MiMo-V2.5 $0.01.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
MiMo-V2.5, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.5-Flash vs MiMo-V2.5 comparison based on?
44 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.5-Flash's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and MiMo-V2.5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.