Model Comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 32B cost the same.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (AIME 2025), while Qwen3 32B is better at 0 benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 32B costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) costs the same as Qwen3 32B ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) costs the same as Qwen3 32B ($0.30/1M tokens).

In conclusion, MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 32B cost the same.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerXiaomi
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 32B
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

276.2B diff

MiMo-V2-Flash has 276.2B more parameters than Qwen3 32B, making it 842.1% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 32B
32.8Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2-Flash
32.8B
Qwen3 32B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2-Flash accepts 256,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3 32B's 128,000 tokens. Qwen3 32B 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
Qwen3 32B
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3 32B 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

Qwen3 32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16, while Qwen3 32B was released on 2025-04-29.

MiMo-V2-Flash is 8 months newer than Qwen3 32B.

MiMo-V2-Flash

Dec 16, 2025

4 months ago

7mo newer
Qwen3 32B

Apr 29, 2025

11 months 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. Qwen3 32B is available from DeepInfra, Novita, Sambanova.

MiMo-V2-Flash

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

Qwen3 32B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.44/1M
sambanova logo
Sambanova
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.80/1M
* 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 AIME 2025 score (94.1% vs 72.9%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3 32B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Flash
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 32B

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3 32B 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%. Qwen3 32B scores Arena Hard: 93.8%, AIME 2024: 81.4%, LiveBench: 74.9%, MultiLF: 73.0%, AIME 2025: 72.9%.
Both models cost $0.10 per million input tokens.
MiMo-V2-Flash supports 256K tokens and Qwen3 32B 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), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
MiMo-V2-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3 32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.