Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen: Qwen3.6 Flash vs Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.5-Pro

The average score is effectively tied at 6.9 vs 6.9. MiMo-V2.5-Pro (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.187 vs $0.738. MiMo-V2.5-Pro (medium) is faster at 33.92s vs 44.65s, with pass rates of 68.2% vs 66.7%.

Recommended modelMiMo-V2.5-Pro (medium)It has the best score here (6.9), while costing about 4.0x less than Qwen3.6 Flash (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-21

Metric Qwen3.6 Flash Qwen3.6 Flash medium Release: 2026-04-20 MiMo-V2.5-Pro MiMo-V2.5-Pro medium Release: 2026-04-22
Score 6.9 6.9
Rank #89 #88
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.2 8.2
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 68.2% 66.7%
Flaky tests 5 5
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 6.784 3.218
Total Cost $0.738 $0.187
Input Price $0.188 / 1M $0.435 / 1M
Output Price $1.125 / 1M $0.870 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 129,041 139,883
Output Tokens 20,026 15,521
Reasoning Tokens 614,312 130,992
Response Time (avg) 44.65s 33.92s
Response Time (max) 578.13s 197.54s
Response Time (total) 982.32s 746.19s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#89 Qwen3.6 Flash

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.008
Time
29.9s
Tokens
6,784 tok

#88 MiMo-V2.5-Pro

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
300.0s
Tokens
0 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
Qwen3.6 Flash 5.0 5.1 44.5% 2 42.85s 7,895 495 67,967
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 6.2 4.7 66.7% 2 92.07s 6,543 780 51,218

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair