Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 51 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- MiMo-V2-Flash only
- 1
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 51
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus 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 18 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
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 54.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.6 against 73.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.7% to 90.3%. MiMo-V2-Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-Flash84.7 | Margin← 24.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Flash73.4 | Margin→ 2.2 | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Reasoning | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Math | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Inst. Following | MiMo-V2-FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.7%B 90.3%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.6GPQA: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.4%B 77.7%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 4.3SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 84.9%B 88.5%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.6MMLU-Pro: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-Flash2.14 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Flash256K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 12.0% | 20.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 83.9% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 16.7% | 21.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 833 | 936 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.4% | 77.7% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 49.8% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 25.9% | 45.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.7% | 90.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 84.9% | 88.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 65.6% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 8.0% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.5% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.2% | 22.2% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.1% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 90.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 60.1. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 73.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.