Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2-Flash
61
Qwen3 235B 2507
34
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Knowledge
+8.3 difference
MiMo-V2-Flash
Qwen3 235B 2507
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
129 t/s
N/A
2.14s
N/A
256K
128K
Pick MiMo-V2-Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
MiMo-V2-Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 61 to 34. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 84.5 against 76.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.7% to 77.5%.
MiMo-V2-Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MiMo-V2-Flash gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.
MiMo-V2-Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 61 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 77.5%.
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.5 versus 76.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.