Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen3.5-9B vs MiMo-V2.5

The average score is effectively tied at 5.1 vs 5.1. Qwen3.5-9B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.021 vs $0.025. MiMo-V2.5 is faster at 4.68s vs 19.19s, with pass rates of 19.7% vs 27.3%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-04

Rank
#261
Total Output Tokens
37,484
Response Time (avg)
19.19s
Total Cost
$0.021
Rank
#260
Total Output Tokens
16,464
Response Time (avg)
4.68s
Total Cost
$0.025
Recommended model MiMo-V2.5

It has the best score here (5.1), while responding about 4.1x faster than Qwen3.5-9B.

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.5-9B Qwen3.5-9B none Release: 2026-03-02 MiMo-V2.5 MiMo-V2.5 none Release: 2026-04-22
Score 5.1 5.1
Rank #261 #260
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.7 9.2
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 19.7% 27.3%
Flaky tests 1 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.490 0.769
Total Cost $0.021 $0.025
Input Price $0.100 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $0.150 / 1M $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 144,416 141,052
Output Tokens 37,484 16,464
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 19.19s 4.68s
Response Time (max) 382.06s 55.36s
Response Time (total) 422.25s 103.02s
Parameters 9B 310B total (15B active)
Availability Open source Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#261 Qwen3.5-9B

none
Reached the allocated time limit (300 seconds) without receiving showcase output.
Cost
$0.000
Time
300.0s
Tokens
0 tok

#260 MiMo-V2.5

none
Cost
$0.007
Time
267.4s
Tokens
25,283 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.5-9B 3.9 7.8 11.1% 1 5.60s 7,913 1,042 0
MiMo-V2.5 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 3.24s 7,440 696 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair