The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 38.7.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 38.7, 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 45.7 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.45/M input and $3.00/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
45.7
#29
38.7
#66
43.2
#42
38.5
#63
36.6
#22
23.0
#80
33.3
#25
20.1
#65
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
Input price
— / M
$0.45 / M
Output price
— / M
$3.00 / M
Context window
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
28.1#22
16.9#81
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 38 for Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17Bdon'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

88.0B diff

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B has 88.0B more parameters than MiMo-V2.6-Flash, making it 28.5% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
397.0Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
397.0B
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3.5-397B-A17B specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Qwen3.5-397B-A17B specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Mon Sep 21 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B 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

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B 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

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 7 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

7mo newer
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Feb 16, 2026

7 months 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 38.7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B 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%. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B scores MMLU-Redux: 94.9%, HMMT 2025: 94.8%, C-Eval: 93.0%, HMMT25: 92.7%, IFEval: 92.6%.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.7 vs 38.7), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.