The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

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

Qwen3.8 Max leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 45.6.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Qwen3.8 Max leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 45.6, ranking #11 overall.

The models split the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models evenly.

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

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Flash

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.8 Max

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.8 and ranks #11 on LLM Stats

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
Qwen3.8 Max
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.6
#29
51.8
#11
Reasoning
42.5
#45
50.4
#11
Coding
36.7
#21
39.3
#15
Agents
33.1
#26
37.6
#12
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 4
2 of 4
Input price
— / M
$1.65 / M
Output price
— / M
$4.95 / M
Context window
—
256,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.8 Max
Tool use
24.7#29
28.8#15
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Flash · 42 for Qwen3.8 Max

4 shared

MiMo-V2.6-Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Qwen3.8 Max is better at 2 benchmarks (Agents' Last Exam, OSWorld-Verified).

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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

2091.0B diff

Qwen3.8 Max has 2091.0B more parameters than MiMo-V2.6-Flash, making it 676.7% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
309.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Max
2.4Tparameters
309.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
2400.0B
Qwen3.8 Max

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3.8 Max specifies input context (256,000 tokens). Only Qwen3.8 Max specifies output context (256,000 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Max
Input256,000 tokens
Output256,000 tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.8 Max uses Qwen3.8-Max 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 Max

Qwen3.8-Max License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Flash was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen3.8 Max was released on 2026-08-02.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 2 months newer than Qwen3.8 Max.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

1mo newer
Qwen3.8 Max

Aug 2, 2026

1 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 Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

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

FAQ

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

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

Qwen3.8 Max leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 45.6. MiMo-V2.6-Flash is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Max 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 Max scores PaperBench: 93.0%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 92.9%, GPQA: 92.6%, VideoMME w sub.: 90.4%, RealWorldQA: 88.0%.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Flash and Qwen3.8 Max?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3.8 Max supports 256K 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 Max?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.6 vs 51.8), licensing (MIT vs Qwen3.8-Max License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

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

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

Related comparisons