Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash vs Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5

MiMo-V2.5 (medium) leads on average score with 6.5 vs 6.2. MiMo-V2.5 (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.082 vs $0.139. MiMo-V2.5 (medium) is faster at 32.20s vs 84.82s, with pass rates of 69.7% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelMiMo-V2.5 (medium)It has the best score here (6.5), while costing about 1.7x less than Qwen3.5-Flash (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-25

Metric Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24 MiMo-V2.5 MiMo-V2.5 medium Release: 2026-04-22
Score 6.2 6.5
Rank #125 #111
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.8 7.9
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 69.7% 69.7%
Flaky tests 6 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.361 3.124
Total Cost $0.139 $0.082
Input Price $0.065 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $0.260 / 1M $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 118,499 105,447
Output Tokens 12,284 7,120
Reasoning Tokens 490,610 230,682
Response Time (avg) 84.82s 32.20s
Response Time (max) 515.38s 162.44s
Response Time (total) 1781.22s 708.46s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#125 Qwen3.5-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
25.8s
Tokens
4,294 tok

#111 MiMo-V2.5

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
54.8s
Tokens
5,247 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-Flash 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 58.87s 6,685 302 90,081
MiMo-V2.5 6.2 4.7 66.7% 2 97.14s 7,422 557 81,977

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair