Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
MiMo-V2-Omni
83
Qwen3.5 397B
64
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Omni unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #15
Pick MiMo-V2-Omni if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+14.5 difference
MiMo-V2-Omni
Qwen3.5 397B
N/A
$0.6 / $3.6
N/A
96 t/s
N/A
2.44s
262K
128K
Pick MiMo-V2-Omni if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
MiMo-V2-Omni is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 83 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Omni's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 74.8 against 60.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.8% to 76.2%.
MiMo-V2-Omni 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-Omni gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
MiMo-V2-Omni is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.8% and 76.2%.
MiMo-V2-Omni has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.8 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.