The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.7-Plus

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 42.6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 1.0x cheaper per token.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 42.6, ranking #19 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, MiMo-V2.6-Pro wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro 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-Pro

  • overall performance matters — it scores 49.8 and ranks #19 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • 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 Qwen3.7-Plus

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.32/M input and $1.28/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Xiaomi
Qwen3.7-Plus
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.8
#19
42.6
#49
Reasoning
45.2
#30
43.0
#43
Coding
41.8
#9
30.7
#52
Agents
37.5
#13
24.3
#55
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.43 / M
$0.32 / M
Output price
$0.87 / M
$1.28 / 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-Pro
Qwen3.7-Plus
Tool use
28.0#21
22.3#44
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

18 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Pro · 70 for Qwen3.7-Plus

1 shared

MiMo-V2.6-Pro outperforms in 1 benchmarks (OSWorld-Verified), while Qwen3.7-Plus is better at 0 benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro significantly outperforms across most 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-Pro costs less

For input processing, MiMo-V2.6-Pro ($0.43/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than Qwen3.7-Plus ($0.32/1M tokens).

For output processing, MiMo-V2.6-Pro ($0.87/1M tokens) is 1.5x cheaper than Qwen3.7-Plus ($1.28/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.7-Plus is more expensive than MiMo-V2.6-Pro.*

* 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-Pro
Input tokens$0.43
Output tokens$0.87
Best providerXiaomi
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.7-Plus
Input tokens$0.32
Output tokens$1.28
Best providerTogether
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.7-Plus's 1,000,000 tokens. Only Qwen3.7-Plus specifies output context (65,536 tokens).

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.7-Plus
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.7-Plus support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.7-Plus

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.7-Plus uses a proprietary license.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.7-Plus

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Pro was released on 2026-09-22, while Qwen3.7-Plus was released on 2026-05-31.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 4 months newer than Qwen3.7-Plus.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

3mo newer
Qwen3.7-Plus

May 31, 2026

3 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-Pro is available from Xiaomi. Qwen3.7-Plus is available from Together, Fireworks.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.43/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.87/1M

Qwen3.7-Plus

together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.32/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.28/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.60/1M
* 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-Pro and Qwen3.7-Plus side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.7-Plus
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.7-Plus.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.7-Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 49.8 to 42.6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.7-Plus 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-Pro compare to Qwen3.7-Plus in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores CyberGym: 94.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 89.9%, OSWorld-Verified: 82.0%, MiMo Cyber Bench: 81.7%, Toolathlon-Verified: 76.9%. Qwen3.7-Plus scores IFEval: 94.6%, MMLU-Redux: 94.5%, HMMT Feb 26: 92.9%, MRCR v2: 91.7%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.4%.

Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro cheaper than Qwen3.7-Plus?

Qwen3.7-Plus is 1.4x cheaper for input tokens. MiMo-V2.6-Pro costs $0.43/M input and $0.87/M output via xiaomi. Qwen3.7-Plus costs $0.32/M input and $1.28/M output via together.

What are the context window sizes for MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.7-Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.7-Plus 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-Pro and Qwen3.7-Plus?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.8 vs 42.6), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.43 vs $0.32/M), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.7-Plus?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and Qwen3.7-Plus is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons