Model Comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 VL 4B ThinkingWhich is better in 2026?
MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash is 2.2x cheaper per token.
Verdict: MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking — which is better?
MiMo-V2-Flash (by Xiaomi) and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 5 benchmarks (AIME 2025, Arena-Hard v2, GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro), while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, MiMo-V2-Flash is roughly 2.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Choose MiMo-V2-Flash if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 5 of 5 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 2.2x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2025
Choose Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking if…
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
MiMo-V2-Flash outperforms in 5 benchmarks (AIME 2025, Arena-Hard v2, GPQA, LiveCodeBench v6, MMLU-Pro), while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.
MiMo-V2-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) costs the same as Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2-Flash ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.3x cheaper than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking ($1.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash has 305.0B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking, making it 7625.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Flash's 256,000 tokens. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Flash is limited to 16,384 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Flash does not.
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
MiMo-V2-Flash
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
License
Usage and distribution terms
MiMo-V2-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking 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 VL 4B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.
MiMo-V2-Flash is 3 months newer than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.
Dec 16, 2025
7 months ago
2mo newerSep 22, 2025
10 months 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 VL 4B Thinking is available from DeepInfra.
MiMo-V2-Flash
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
View detailsAlibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.