Navigate
Advertise here

Qwen3.7 Max vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash (medium)

Qwen3.7 Max leads on average score with 7.4 vs 7.4. MiMo-V2.6-Flash (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.190 vs $0.197. Qwen3.7 Max is faster at 4.56s vs 60.62s, with pass rates of 68.2% vs 65.2%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-22

Compared models

Rank
#121
Total Output Tokens
12,446
Response Time (avg)
4.56s
Total Cost
$0.197
Rank
#126
Total Output Tokens
615,978
Response Time (avg)
60.62s
Total Cost
$0.190
Recommended model Qwen3.7 Max

It has the best score here (7.4), while responding about 13.3x faster than MiMo-V2.6-Flash (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.7 Max Qwen3.7 Max none Release: 2026-05-22 MiMo-V2.6-Flash MiMo-V2.6-Flash medium Release: 2026-09-22
Score 7.4 7.4
Rank #121 #126
Reliability 9.9 10.0
Consistency 10.0 7.8
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 68.2% 65.2%
Flaky tests 0 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.581 1.723
Total Cost $0.197 $0.190
Input Price $1.475 / 1M $0.140 / 1M
Output Price $4.425 / 1M $0.280 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 95,992 121,240
Output Tokens 12,446 7,516
Reasoning Tokens 0 608,462
Response Time (avg) 4.56s 60.62s
Response Time (max) 72.30s 357.28s
Response Time (total) 100.30s 1333.53s
Parameters ~1T total (~40B active) 309B total (15B active)
Availability Closed Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#121 Qwen3.7 Max

none
Cost
$0.046
Time
195.0s
Tokens
12,171 tok

#126 MiMo-V2.6-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.004
Time
61.0s
Tokens
10,798 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
Qwen3.7 Max 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.35s 7,911 582 0
MiMo-V2.6-Flash 7.2 5.1 77.8% 2 18.23s 7,422 533 31,521

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair