Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2-Flash
62
Qwen3.5 397B
66
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #11
Pick Qwen3.5 397B 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.
Coding
+13.1 difference
Knowledge
+19.3 difference
MiMo-V2-Flash
Qwen3.5 397B
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
129 t/s
96 t/s
2.14s
2.44s
256K
128K
Pick Qwen3.5 397B 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.
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 66 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 Qwen3.5 397B.
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 66 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 88.4%.
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.5 versus 65.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.4 versus 60.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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.