Model Comparison

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. MiMo-V2-Omni is 1.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B outperforms in 1 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified), while MiMo-V2-Omni is better at 0 benchmarks.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Apr 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

MiMo-V2-Omni costs less

For input processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.60/1M tokens) is 1.5x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Omni ($0.40/1M tokens).

For output processing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.60/1M tokens) is 1.8x more expensive than MiMo-V2-Omni ($2.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is more expensive than MiMo-V2-Omni.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 03 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input tokens$0.60
Output tokens$3.60
Best providerNovita
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Omni
Input tokens$0.40
Output tokens$2.00
Best providerXiaomi
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to MiMo-V2-Omni's 262,000 tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can generate longer responses up to 64,000 tokens, while MiMo-V2-Omni is limited to 16,384 tokens.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Input262,144 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Omni
Input262,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
Fri Apr 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Qwen3.5-397B-A17B and MiMo-V2-Omni support multimodal inputs.

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

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiMo-V2-Omni

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while MiMo-V2-Omni uses a proprietary license.

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

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16, while MiMo-V2-Omni was released on 2026-03-18.

MiMo-V2-Omni is 1 month newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

Feb 16, 2026

1 months ago

MiMo-V2-Omni

Mar 18, 2026

2 weeks ago

1mo newer

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

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from Novita. MiMo-V2-Omni is available from Xiaomi.

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.60/1M

MiMo-V2-Omni

xiaomi logo
Xiaomi
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Larger context window (262,144 tokens)
Has open weights
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (76.4% vs 74.8%)
Xiaomi
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2-Omni

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs MiMo-V2-Omni

Qwen3.5-397B-A17B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and MiMo-V2-Omni is made by Xiaomi. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B scores MMLU-Redux: 94.9%, HMMT 2025: 94.8%, C-Eval: 93.0%, HMMT25: 92.7%, IFEval: 92.6%. MiMo-V2-Omni scores PinchBench: 81.2%, SWE-Bench Verified: 74.8%, Claw-Eval: 54.8%, MM-BrowserComp: 52.0%, OmniGAIA: 49.8%.
MiMo-V2-Omni is 1.5x cheaper for input tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output via novita. MiMo-V2-Omni costs $0.40/M input and $2.00/M output via xiaomi.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K tokens and MiMo-V2-Omni supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (262K vs 262K), input pricing ($0.60 vs $0.40/M), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and MiMo-V2-Omni is developed by Xiaomi.