The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 25.1. Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.4x 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 25.1, ranking #16 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 2.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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-V2.5-Pro

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Qwen3.8 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 49.6 and ranks #16 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 2.4x cheaper per token
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Xiaomi
Qwen3.8 Flash
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
25.1
#145
49.6
#16
Reasoning
24.5
#144
49.2
#16
Coding
31.1
#42
36.6
#20
Agents
22.2
#49
35.5
#14
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 4
4 of 4
Input price
$0.43 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$0.87 / M
$0.47 / M
Context window
1,048,576
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Qwen3.8 Flash
Math
25.6#100
32.6#55
Tool use
23.2#38
31.6#10
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for MiMo-V2.5-Pro · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash

4 shared

MiMo-V2.5-Pro outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 4 benchmarks (GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, LiveCodeBench v6, SWE-Bench Pro).

Qwen3.8 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens) is 2.9x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.5-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens) is 1.9x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).

In conclusion, MiMo-V2.5-Pro is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Input tokens$0.43
Output tokens$0.87
Best providerXiaomi
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.47
Best providerNovita
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

898.2B diff

MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 898.2B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 718.6% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
125.0Bparameters
1023.2B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
125.0B
Qwen3.8 Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiMo-V2.5-Pro does not.

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.8 Flash uses a proprietary license.

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.5-Pro was released on 2026-04-27, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

Qwen3.8 Flash is 4 months newer than MiMo-V2.5-Pro.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Apr 27, 2026

4 months ago

Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 2026

4 days ago

4mo 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

Provider Availability

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available from Xiaomi, DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.43/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.87/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $6.00/1M

Qwen3.8 Flash

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.47/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.8 Flash.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 25.1. MiMo-V2.5-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8 Flash 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-V2.5-Pro compare to Qwen3.8 Flash in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores FrontierSWE (Impl.): 100.0%, GSM8k: 99.6%, ARC-C: 97.2%, MMLU-Redux: 92.8%, C-Eval: 91.5%. Qwen3.8 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.9x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs $0.43/M input and $0.87/M output via xiaomi. Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (25.1 vs 49.6), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.43 vs $0.15/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8 Flash is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons