Model Comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (MMLU-Pro), while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Apr 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 1.1x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, MiMo-V2-Flash is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Apr 14 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerXiaomi
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input tokens$0.09
Output tokens$0.09
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

277.0B diff

MiMo-V2-Flash has 277.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 865.6% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2-Flash
32.0B
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2-Flash accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input256,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Tue Apr 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

MiMo-V2-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

MiMo-V2-Flash is 15 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

MiMo-V2-Flash

Dec 16, 2025

3 months ago

1.2yr newer
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

MiMo-V2-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Xiaomi
Larger context window (256,000 tokens)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (84.9% vs 50.4%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
MiMo-V2-Flash scores AIME 2025: 94.1%, Arena-Hard v2: 86.2%, MMLU-Pro: 84.9%, HMMT 2025: 84.4%, GPQA: 83.7%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.1x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2-Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.30/M output via xiaomi. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.
MiMo-V2-Flash supports 256K tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (256K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.09/M), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
MiMo-V2-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.