Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 235B 2507
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 2 to Qwen3 235B 2507.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 17
- Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3 235B 2507 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.02 versus 54.06. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
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.
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-Flash | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 | Margin← 5.8 | Qwen3 235B 250778.9 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
| Multilingual | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 250779.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.7%B 77.5%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 6.2GPQA: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 84.9%B 83%Winner: MiMo-V2-FlashΔ 1.9MMLU-Pro: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 83%. MiMo-V2-Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Qwen3 235B 2507128K | MiMo-V2-Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.7% | 77.5% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.9% | 83% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 65.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 8.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 39.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Qwen3 235B 2507 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.02 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 77.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 235B 2507?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 78.9. Inside this category, GPQA 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.