The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 32.4. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.8x cheaper per token.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 32.4, ranking #31 overall.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 1.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.7 and ranks #31 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 1.8x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.10/M input and $0.95/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.7
#31
32.4
#111
Reasoning
43.1
#45
33.0
#103
Coding
36.3
#22
19.6
#108
Agents
33.0
#28
11.7
#112
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.14 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$0.28 / M
$0.95 / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Tool use
25.7#29
11.1#119
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 49 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3Bdon'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

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.14/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens) is 3.4x cheaper than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ($0.95/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Sep 25 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
Best providerXiaomi
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.95
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

274.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 274.0B more parameters than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, making it 782.9% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
35.0Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
35.0B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's 262,144 tokens. Only Qwen3.6-35B-A3B specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Fri Sep 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B was released on 2026-04-16.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 5 months newer than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

5mo newer
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Apr 16, 2026

5 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

Provider Availability

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is available from Xiaomi. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is available from DeepInfra.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.14/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.28/1M

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.95/1M
* 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-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 45.7 to 32.4. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scores MMLU-Redux: 93.3%, MMBench-V1.1: 92.8%, AI2D: 92.7%, AIME 2026: 92.7%, RefCOCO-avg: 92.0%.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash cheaper than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is 1.4x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/M output via xiaomi. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B costs $0.10/M input and $0.95/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.7 vs 32.4), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.14 vs $0.10/M), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons