The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched at 45.6 and 49.0 on the LLM Stats Score. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.3x cheaper per token.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 45.6 and 49.0.

The models split the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models evenly.

On price, MiMo-V2.6-Flash is roughly 1.3x 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

  • cost matters — it's about 1.3x 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
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Qwen3.8 Flash

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Qwen3.8 Flash
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.6
#29
49.0
#22
Reasoning
42.5
#45
48.8
#17
Coding
36.7
#21
35.8
#27
Agents
33.1
#26
34.8
#24
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 2
1 of 2
Input price
$0.14 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$0.28 / M
$0.47 / M
Context window
1,048,576
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash
Tool use
24.7#29
29.0#12
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash

2 shared

MiMo-V2.6-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1), while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Agents' Last Exam).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

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 1.1x cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.6-Flash ($0.28/1M tokens) is 1.7x cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.8 Flash is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input tokens$0.14
Output tokens$0.28
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

184.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Flash has 184.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 147.2% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
125.0Bparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
125.0B
Qwen3.8 Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. Only Qwen3.8 Flash specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash 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

Qwen3.8 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

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

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1 month newer than Qwen3.8 Flash.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

3w newer
Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 2026

3 weeks 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. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

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

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-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 45.6 and 49.0. MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash compare to Qwen3.8 Flash 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%. Qwen3.8 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Flash cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 1.1x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14/M input and $0.28/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-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.6 vs 49.0), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.14 vs $0.15/M), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8 Flash is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons