MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: MiMo-V2.6-Flash by Xiaomi or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 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 Max (0902) scores 7.5 points higher (45.4 vs 37.9) but costs 45× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $110; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) when you need intelligence above 37.9, and MiMo-V2.6-Flash when 37.9 is enough.
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.9 | 45.4 | +19.8% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 19.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $109.55 | $4,934.79 | +4404.6% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 45× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 49.26s | 64.05s | +30.0% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 30.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 19.8% more intelligence, 4404.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 30.0% 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 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
MiMo-V2.6-FlashQwen3.8 Max (0902)Today'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-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mimo-v2-6-flash/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill