The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 9.7.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 9.7, 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 45.6 and ranks #29 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.6
#29
9.7
#271
Reasoning
42.5
#45
8.4
#276
Coding
36.7
#21
12.4
#151
Agents
33.1
#26
-3.2
#180
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.14 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.28 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 28 for Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instructdon'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

275.5B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 275.5B more parameters than Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct, making it 822.4% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
33.5Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
33.5B
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2.6-Flash specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct 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

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

MIT

Open weights

Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct was released on 2025-02-28.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 19 months newer than Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

1.6yr newer
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct

Feb 28, 2025

1.6 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 Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.6 to 9.7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct 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 Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct 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%. Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct scores DocVQA: 94.8%, Android Control Low_EM: 93.3%, HumanEval: 91.5%, ScreenSpot: 88.5%, MBPP: 84.0%.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct 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-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.6 vs 9.7), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen2.5 VL 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons