The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the LLM Stats Score 49.7 to 35.9.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.7 to 35.9, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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-Next

  • overall performance matters — it scores 49.7 and ranks #15 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
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2-Pro
Xiaomi
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
35.9
#74
49.7
#15
Reasoning
37.7
#58
49.3
#15
Coding
26.0
#58
36.6
#18
Agents
17.1
#66
35.5
#13
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$1.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$3.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2-Pro
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Tool use
19.3#55
31.6#9
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for MiMo-V2-Pro · 22 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

1 shared

MiMo-V2-Pro outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is better at 1 benchmark (SWE-bench Multilingual).

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

875.0B diff

MiMo-V2-Pro has 875.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, making it 700.0% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
125.0Bparameters
1000.0B
MiMo-V2-Pro
125.0B
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2-Pro specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only MiMo-V2-Pro specifies output context (16,384 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Pro
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2-Pro does not.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiMo-V2-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2-Pro is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next uses Qwen Community License 1.0.

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

MiMo-V2-Pro

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen Community License 1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2-Pro was released on 2026-03-18, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released on 2026-08-26.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 5 months newer than MiMo-V2-Pro.

MiMo-V2-Pro

Mar 18, 2026

5 months ago

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Aug 26, 2026

5 days ago

5mo newer

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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2-Pro
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.

Which is better, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the LLM Stats Score 49.7 to 35.9. MiMo-V2-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does MiMo-V2-Pro compare to Qwen3.8-Flash-Next in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores Tau2 Telecom: 96.8%, DeepSearchQA: 86.7%, PinchBench: 81.0%, SWE-Bench Verified: 78.0%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 71.7%. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

MiMo-V2-Pro supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (35.9 vs 49.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Proprietary vs Qwen Community License 1.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

MiMo-V2-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons