MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 35.9. Qwen3.8 Flash is 6.5x cheaper per token.
Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 35.9, ranking #16 overall.
In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 6.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose MiMo-V2-Pro
- you want predictable pricing at $1.00/M input and $3.00/M output
Choose Qwen3.8 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 49.6 and ranks #16 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 6.5x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
7 reported for MiMo-V2-Pro · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
MiMo-V2-Pro outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (SWE-bench Multilingual).
Qwen3.8 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-Pro ($1.00/1M tokens) is 6.7x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, MiMo-V2-Pro ($3.00/1M tokens) is 6.4x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, MiMo-V2-Pro is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
MiMo-V2-Pro has 875.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 700.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Both models have the same input context window of 1,000,000 tokens. Qwen3.8 Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Pro is limited to 16,384 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Qwen3.8 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Pro does not.
Qwen3.8 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
MiMo-V2-Pro
Qwen3.8 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.
Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.
Proprietary
Closed source
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
MiMo-V2-Pro was released on 2026-03-18, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Qwen3.8 Flash is 5 months newer than MiMo-V2-Pro.
Mar 18, 2026
5 months ago
Aug 26, 2026
4 days ago
5mo newerKnowledge 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-Pro is available from Xiaomi. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
MiMo-V2-Pro
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash.