MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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 1.9 points higher (39.8 vs 37.9) but costs 3.3× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $110; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when you need intelligence above 37.9, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash when 37.9 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 39.8 | +5.0% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 5.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $362.72 | +231.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 3.3× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.26s | 50.49s | +2.5% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 2.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 5.0% more intelligence, 231.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 2.5% 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-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.8-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-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill