Qwen3.5 Flash vs MiMo-V2.5
Too close to call on our weighted score (MiMo-V2.5 79, Qwen3.5 Flash 79). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 Flash
79/100- ECI144.0
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1M
XiaomiMiMo-V2.5
79/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (MiMo-V2.5 79/100, Qwen3.5 Flash 79/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 Flash on price and MiMo-V2.5 for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceSame priceQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · MiMo-V2.5 $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.5MiMo-V2.5 1,048,576 · Qwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.5Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video · MiMo-V2.5: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.5Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 Flash | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 79/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | MiMo-V2.5Xiaomi |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 144.0 | — |
| ECI rank | #82 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 82.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 18.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 84.4% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 20.3% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.14 |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.28 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.01 | $0.0028 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3.5-flash | mimo-v2.5 |
| API providers | 8 | 21 (best) |
| Released | Feb 23, 2026 | Apr 22, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Dec 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
- MiMo-V2.5$1.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (MiMo-V2.5 79/100, Qwen3.5 Flash 79/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 Flash on price and MiMo-V2.5 for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 Flash or MiMo-V2.5?
Qwen3.5 Flash and MiMo-V2.5 cost the same: $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.5 Flash has an ECI of 144.0 and MiMo-V2.5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 Flash and MiMo-V2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2.5 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.5 Flash. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536, MiMo-V2.5 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video; MiMo-V2.5 accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.5 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiMo-V2.5 is the newest, released Apr 22, 2026. Qwen3.5 Flash came out Feb 23, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: MiMo-V2.5 Dec 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemma 4 31B ITThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B ITGoogle · ECI 142.8
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax · ECI 145.9
- MiMo-V2.5 vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun
- MiMo-V2.5 vs Seed CharacterByteDance Seed
