Model comparison
MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Pro unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: MiMo-V2-Pro supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Pro; 43 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- MiMo-V2-Pro only
- 1
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 43
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick MiMo-V2-Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MiMo-V2-Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
MiMo-V2-Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 78 against 73.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 78% to 73.4%.
MiMo-V2-Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
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-Pro | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | MiMo-V2-Pro78.0 | Margin← 4.2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Agentic | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Knowledge | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Math | MiMo-V2-ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Multimodal | MiMo-V2-ProNot 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 ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 78%B 73.4%Winner: MiMo-V2-ProΔ 4.6SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Pro scored 78%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. MiMo-V2-Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MiMo-V2-ProNot available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MiMo-V2-Pro1M | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | MiMo-V2-Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 68.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 36.68% | 42.65% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | 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 |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
CodingMiMo-V2-Pro wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 78% | 73.4% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 40.9% | 34.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.5% | 35.8% | MiMo-V2-Pro 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.3% | 31.6% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.0% | 84.1% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.3% | 20.2% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 4.9% | -21.4% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 26.8% | 18.9% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 29.9% | 49.7% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2-Pro | 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-Pro | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 68.8% | 64.4% | MiMo-V2-Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2-Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 78% and 73.4%.
Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
MiMo-V2-Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 73.8. 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.