MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
MiMo-V2-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 30.6 to 21.0. MiMo-V2-Flash is 3.2x cheaper per token.
Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
MiMo-V2-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 30.6 to 21.0, ranking #133 overall.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2-Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 3.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose MiMo-V2-Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 30.6 and ranks #133 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 3.2x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2025
Choose Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
15 reported for MiMo-V2-Flash · 10 for Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.
MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.3x cheaper than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct ($1.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct has 171.0B more parameters than MiMo-V2-Flash, making it 55.3% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Flash's 256,000 tokens. Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiMo-V2-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
MIT
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiMo-V2-Flash was released on 2025-12-16, while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct was released on 2025-01-31.
MiMo-V2-Flash is 11 months newer than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct.
Dec 16, 2025
9 months ago
10mo newerJan 31, 2025
1.7 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
MiMo-V2-Flash is available from Xiaomi. Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is available from DeepInfra.
MiMo-V2-Flash
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct.