Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Xiaomi logo
Model A
MiMo-V2-Omni

Xiaomi

62.61/100

Supported · Public rank #51

90% interval 52.0–73.2

MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Alibaba

51.55/100

Estimated · Public rank #122

90% interval 40.0–63.1

Decision reading

MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score estimate, 62.61 versus 51.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
2
MiMo-V2-Omni only
0
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
39
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Directional only
MiMo-V2-Omni
74.8
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
73.8
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
51.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
51.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
88.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
76.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
MiMo-V2-Omni
Not measured
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API rate not published
Fits in one request

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

MiMo-V2-Omni
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

MiMo-V2-Omni has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

MiMo-V2-Omni

262K

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

262K

API model ID

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

MiMo-V2-Omni

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiMo-V2-Omni

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiMo-V2-Omni

Reasoning

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

MiMo-V2-Omni

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

MiMo-V2-Omni

2026-03-18

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

2026-04-15

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score estimate, 62.61 versus 51.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 262K.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence41 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    MiMo-V2-Omni45.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B68.7%
    Source

    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B52.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenWebBench

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B1397
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B35.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B25.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B26.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B62.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B60.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B42.65%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    MiMo-V2-Omni74.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.4%
    Source

    MiMo-V2-Omni leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B49.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B29.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B64.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B21.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B75.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B58.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ODINW13

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B50.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B82.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    MiMo-V2-Omni—
    Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

MiMo-V2-Omni has the higher public score estimate, 62.61 versus 51.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, MiMo-V2-Omni or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Both models list the same context window, 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 29, 2026

Watch MiMo-V2-Omni vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.