MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.5 by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 18.0 points higher (39.8 vs 21.8) but costs 5.9× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $61.9; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when you need intelligence above 21.8, and MiMo-V2.5 when 21.8 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.5 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 21.8 | 39.8 | +82.6% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 82.6% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $61.93 | $362.72 | +485.7% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 5.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 53.94s | 50.49s | −6.4% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 6.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.13 / $0.27 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs MiMo-V2.5: 82.6% more intelligence, 485.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 6.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiMo-V2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
MiMo-V2.5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-0424/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-5-0424/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill