The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs QvQ-72B-Preview

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 7.9.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 7.9, ranking #29 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.7 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose QvQ-72B-Preview

  • you are already invested in the Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
QvQ-72B-Preview
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.7
#29
7.9
#285
Reasoning
43.2
#42
8.2
#277
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 4 for QvQ-72B-Preview

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and QvQ-72B-Previewdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

235.6B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 235.6B more parameters than QvQ-72B-Preview, making it 321.0% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QvQ-72B-Preview
73.4Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
73.4B
QvQ-72B-Preview

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and QvQ-72B-Preview support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

QvQ-72B-Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while QvQ-72B-Preview uses Qwen.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

QvQ-72B-Preview

Qwen

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while QvQ-72B-Preview was released on 2024-12-25.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 21 months newer than QvQ-72B-Preview.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

1.7yr newer
QvQ-72B-Preview

Dec 25, 2024

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.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.6-Flash and QvQ-72B-Preview side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
QvQ-72B-Preview
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs QvQ-72B-Preview.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or QvQ-72B-Preview?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 7.9. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and QvQ-72B-Preview 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-V2.6-Flash compare to QvQ-72B-Preview in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores CyberGym: 95.1%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 87.6%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, MiMo Cyber Bench: 77.2%, Toolathlon-Verified: 73.6%. QvQ-72B-Preview scores MathVista: 71.4%, MMMU: 70.3%, MathVision: 35.9%, OlympiadBench: 20.4%.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.6-Flash and QvQ-72B-Preview?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.7 vs 7.9), licensing (MIT vs Qwen). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and QvQ-72B-Preview?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and QvQ-72B-Preview is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons