Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
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 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to MiMo-V2.5; 52 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- MiMo-V2.5 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 52
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic 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
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 58.62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 70.3 against 56.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 65.8% to 61.6%. MiMo-V2.5 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2.556.1 | Margin→ 14.2 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2.565.8 | Margin← 4.2 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2.579.0 | Margin→ 0.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Reasoning | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Math | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Multilingual | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Inst. Following | MiMo-V2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
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 61.6%Winner: MiMo-V2.5Δ 4.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: MiMo-V2.5 scored 65.8%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. MiMo-V2.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 77.9%B 78.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 0.9MMMU-Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 77.9%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 56.1%B 56.6%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 0.5SWE-bench Pro: MiMo-V2.5 scored 56.1%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 56.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 81%B 81.5%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 0.5CharXiv: MiMo-V2.5 scored 81%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 81.5%. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2.5Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2.51M | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticMiMo-V2.5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 62.3% | 58.8% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MM-ClawBenchSource | 23.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | 61.6% | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 46.89% | 50.60% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 16.9% | 18.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 97.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1135 | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 56.1% | 56.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 40.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 88.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 25.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 2.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 26.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | 87.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 81% | 81.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.9% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1291 | 1249 | MiMo-V2.5 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 58.62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.8% and 61.6%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 versus 56.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
MiMo-V2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.8 versus 61.6. 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 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 79. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.