Qwen3.7 Plus vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads Qwen3.7 Plus on coding, 65.4 to 33.2 on the Vibe Coding Index, and MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs 1.5x less per output token ($0.87 vs $1.28 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 45 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3.7 Plus or MiMo-V2.6-Pro: which to pick
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro for coding: it scores 65.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 33.2 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus for work measured by LMArena Vision: diagrams or LMArena Vision: homework, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 45
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 30
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro only
- 28
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 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-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 65.4 against 33.2.
2 and 4 benchmarks behind the scores
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads, 46.3 against 25.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a AA Agentic Index result, 17.5.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads, 1308 against 1269.
Same board, both measured
General
Vals Index
No call
Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro has a Vals Index result, 57.8%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
MiMo-V2.6-Pro takes 1.05M tokens against 1M.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Qwen3.7 Plus $0.0010, MiMo-V2.6-Pro $0.0009 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.7 Plus 33.2 from 2 benchmarks, MiMo-V2.6-Pro 65.4 from 4 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 21.3 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Qwen3.7 Plus 46.4% against MiMo-V2.6-Pro 85.2%, 38.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3.7 Plus $1.28 against MiMo-V2.6-Pro $0.87 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3.7 Plus takes 1M tokens, MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Bars | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 6 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 4 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 6 | ||
| General | 3 | 13 | ||
| All shared boards | 5 | 40 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | Not measured | 81.5% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1625 | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| AA Coding Index | 55.9 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 31.3% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 46.4% | 85.2% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 12.9% | 43.0% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.5% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 39.3% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 52.8% | 67.8% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | Not measured | 41.3% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 54.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 72.9% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| SciCode | 46.1% | 60.9% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 47.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| FrontierCode | 10.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 1158.1 | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1473 | 1533 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1473 | 1528 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1639 | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1616 | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1598 | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 25.2 | 46.3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 147.0 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 17.5 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1290 | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LiveBench research | Not measured | 76.7% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LiveBench browser | Not measured | 88.0% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | Not measured | 47.5% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.0% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 38.2% | 57.3% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 10.5% | 32.4% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 16.4% | 47.1% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 13.8% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 49.3% | 62.9% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.9% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 93.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| APEX-Agents | Not measured | 54.4% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 2.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | Not measured | 79.6% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | Not measured | 15.3% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 90.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 35.6% | 49.4% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 87.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 17.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1460 | 1511 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1466 | 1541 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1460 | 1520 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1292 | 1281 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1295 | 1264 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 93.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 34.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 70.0% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1467 | 1500 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1470 | 1511 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 66.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.0% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1464 | 1506 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1464 | 1497 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1451 | 1485 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1435 | 1468 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1269 | 1308 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1258 | 1340 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1261 | 1314 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1276 | 1336 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Design Arena: 3D | 1238 | 1330 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1269 | 1317 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| Design Arena: SVG | 1208 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | 1143 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LiveBench design | Not measured | 78.5% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index313
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | Not measured | 57.8% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | Not measured | 72.3% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 68.9% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 39.3% | 45.0% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 88.3% | Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro measured |
| Vals Multimodal Index | 53.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| IFBench | 78.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 73.0% | 86.3% | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| DTBench | 84.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMCA | 37.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text | 1454 | 1491 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1439 | 1491 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1438 | 1466 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Vision | 1278 | 1263 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Text: English | 1458 | 1504 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1445 | 1474 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1509 | 1529 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: German | 1471 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1412 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1413 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1472 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1457 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1457 | 1479 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1449 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1459 | 1466 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1454 | 1501 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1437 | 1470 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1422 | 1465 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1280 | 1268 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1332 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1288 | 1270 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1261 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | 1258 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| LMArena Document | 1444 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.7 Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 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
MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Plus costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Plus 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Xiaomi |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | June 3, 2026 | September 21, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.32 | $0.435 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.28 | $0.87 |
| Coding index | 33.2 | 65.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 4 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3.7 Plus better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro for coding?
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Pro for coding: it scores 65.4 on the Vibe Coding Index against 33.2 for Qwen3.7 Plus. Pick Qwen3.7 Plus for work measured by LMArena Vision: diagrams or LMArena Vision: homework, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Plus or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Qwen3.7 Plus costs $0.32 per million input tokens and $1.28 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs $0.435 and $0.87. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.7 Plus or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
MiMo-V2.6-Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.7 Plus vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro comparison based on?
45 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.7 Plus's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and MiMo-V2.6-Pro's on 4. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.