Navigate
Advertise here

Qwen3.5-Flash (medium) vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads on average score with 6.2 vs 6.1. MiMo-V2.6-Pro has the lower benchmark cost at $0.122 vs $0.142. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is faster at 7.09s vs 84.44s, with pass rates of 65.2% vs 45.5%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-21

Compared models

Rank
#212
Total Output Tokens
512,846
Response Time (avg)
84.44s
Total Cost
$0.142
Rank
#202
Total Output Tokens
80,341
Response Time (avg)
7.09s
Total Cost
$0.122
Recommended model MiMo-V2.6-Pro

It has the best score here (6.2), while responding about 11.9x faster than Qwen3.5-Flash (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24 MiMo-V2.6-Pro MiMo-V2.6-Pro none Release: 2026-09-22
Score 6.1 6.2
Rank #212 #202
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.8 9.2
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 65.2% 45.5%
Flaky tests 6 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.491 1.353
Total Cost $0.142 $0.122
Input Price $0.065 / 1M $0.435 / 1M
Output Price $0.260 / 1M $0.870 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 118,508 119,156
Output Tokens 35,457 80,341
Reasoning Tokens 477,389 0
Response Time (avg) 84.44s 7.09s
Response Time (max) 515.38s 106.86s
Response Time (total) 1773.20s 155.92s
Parameters ~35B total (~3B active) 1.02T total (42B active)
Availability Closed Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#212 Qwen3.5-Flash

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

#202 MiMo-V2.6-Pro

none
Cost
$0.002
Time
14.8s
Tokens
2,260 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-V2.6-Pro 5.6 9.9 33.3% 0 3.69s 7,440 4,344 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair