MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 2.0 points higher (39.9 vs 37.9) but costs 24× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $110; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 37.9, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash when 37.9 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 39.9 | +5.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 5.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $2,632.05 | +2302.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 24× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.53s | 61.58s | +24.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 24.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 5.3% more intelligence, 2302.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 24.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill