MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi or Qwen3.7 Plus by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Qwen3.7 Plus vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 33.5% less intelligence, 290.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 9.6% faster end-to-end.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 25.2 | −33.5% Qwen3.7 Plus is 33.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $427.73 | +290.4% Qwen3.7 Plus is 3.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.53s | 44.78s | −9.6% Qwen3.7 Plus is 9.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.7 PlusToday'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-v2-6-flash/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill