Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2.5 #62 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 49 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 49
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.62 to 51.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.8 against 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 51.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
MiMo-V2.5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | MiMo-V2.5 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 17.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin← 14.3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | Margin← 2.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.4 |
| Math | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.8%B 51.5%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 14.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.1%B 49.5%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 6.6SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 81%B 78%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 3CharXiv: MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 78%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.9%B 75.3%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 2.6MMMU-Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 75.3%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | MiMo-V2.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 68.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 51.5% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.89% | 42.65% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 16.9% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.1% | 49.5% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 51.5% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 35.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 31.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 20.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -21.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 18.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
MultimodalMiMo-V2.5 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 87.7% | 86.6% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| CharXivSource | 81% | 78% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.9% | 75.3% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1291 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 64.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.62 to 51.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 51.5%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 56.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 51.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 76.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.