The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs QwQ-32B

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 40.6 to 14.8.

Xiaomi · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the overall LLM Stats Score 40.6 to 14.8, ranking #57 overall.

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

Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro

  • overall performance matters — it scores 40.6 and ranks #57 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose QwQ-32B

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Xiaomi
QwQ-32B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
40.6
#57
14.8
#235
Coding
34.1
#35
10.3
#167
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

3 reported for MiMo-V2.6-Pro · 7 for QwQ-32B

No common benchmarks found

MiMo-V2.6-Pro and QwQ-32Bdon'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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

987.5B diff

MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 987.5B more parameters than QwQ-32B, making it 3038.5% larger.

Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
1.0Tparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
32.5Bparameters
1020.0B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
32.5B
QwQ-32B

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

MiMo-V2.6-Pro supports multimodal inputs, whereas QwQ-32B does not.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Text
Images
Audio
Video

QwQ-32B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is licensed under MIT, while QwQ-32B uses Apache 2.0.

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

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MIT

Open weights

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

MiMo-V2.6-Pro was released on 2026-09-22, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 19 months newer than QwQ-32B.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

Sep 22, 2026

-1 days ago

1.6yr newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

QwQ-32B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-11-28, while MiMo-V2.6-Pro's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm QwQ-32B's training data extends to 2024-11-28, but cannot make a direct comparison without MiMo-V2.6-Pro's cutoff date.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro

—

QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against MiMo-V2.6-Pro and QwQ-32B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

MiMo-V2.6-Pro
✓ Preferred
QwQ-32B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs QwQ-32B.

Which is better, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or QwQ-32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads the LLM Stats Score 40.6 to 14.8. MiMo-V2.6-Pro is made by Xiaomi and QwQ-32B 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 QwQ-32B in benchmarks?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores DeepSWE 1.1: 71.9%, MiMo Coding Bench: 63.2%, Program Bench: 26.5%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.

What are the main differences between MiMo-V2.6-Pro and QwQ-32B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (40.6 vs 14.8), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes MiMo-V2.6-Pro and QwQ-32B?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is developed by Xiaomi and QwQ-32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons