Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: MiMo-V2-Flash supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 39 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 1
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 39
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 59 versus 57. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.8 against 73.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.7% to 86%. MiMo-V2-Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.
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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 | Margin← 32.9 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 | Margin→ 0.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Math | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.7%B 86%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 2.3GPQA: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 86%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 84.9%B 85.2%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 0.3MMLU-Pro: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 85.2%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 12.0% | 21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 83.9% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 16.7% | 27.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 833 | 1049 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | 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 |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.65% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.4% | 73.4% | Tie |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.8% | 41.9% | MiMo-V2-Flash leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 25.8% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 25.9% | 35.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.7% | 86% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.9% | 85.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 31.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 65.6% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 8.0% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.5% | -21.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.2% | 18.9% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.1% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | 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 (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | 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-Flash | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 39.9% | 64.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 86%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 73.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.