The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are closely matched at 49.8 and 49.0 on the LLM Stats Score.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 49.8 and 49.0.

The models split the 2 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-Pro

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

Choose Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

  • you are already invested in the Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Xiaomi
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.8
#19
49.0
#21
Reasoning
45.2
#30
48.9
#16
Coding
41.8
#9
35.8
#26
Agents
37.5
#13
34.9
#23
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 2
1 of 2
Input price
$0.43 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.87 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Tool use
28.0#21
29.1#11
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

18 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Pro · 22 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

2 shared

MiMo-V2.6-Pro outperforms in 1 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1), while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

895.0B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 895.0B more parameters than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, making it 716.0% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
125.0Bparameters
1020.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
125.0B
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only MiMo-V2.6-Pro specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens).

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

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is licensed under MIT, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next uses Qwen Community License 1.0.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MIT

Open weights

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen Community License 1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

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

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

3w newer
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

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

FAQ

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

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 49.8 and 49.0. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is made by Xiaomi and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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%. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next supports an unknown number of 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 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.8 vs 49.0), licensing (MIT vs Qwen Community License 1.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

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

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

Related comparisons