Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

54.06/100
Margin
18.8pts
winning →
72.84/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MiMo-V2-Flash #91 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.7 Max share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to MiMo-V2-Flash; 40 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
MiMo-V2-Flash only
1
Qwen3.7 Max only
40
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiMo-V2-Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 54.06. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.9 against 73.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.7% to 92.4%. MiMo-V2-Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for MiMo-V2-Flash.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryMiMo-V2-FlashΔQwen3.7 Max
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash84.7Margin← 20.5Qwen3.7 Max64.2
CodingMiMo-V2-Flash73.4Margin→ 4.5Qwen3.7 Max77.9
AgenticMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MathMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingMiMo-V2-FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · MiMo-V2-FlashB · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 92.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 8.7
    GPQA: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 83.7%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.4%B 80.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 7
    SWE-bench Verified: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 73.4%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 84.9%B 89.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 4.7
    MMLU-Pro: MiMo-V2-Flash scored 84.9%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 89.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMiMo-V2-Flash$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMiMo-V2-Flash129 tok/sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMiMo-V2-Flash2.14 sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMiMo-V2-Flash256KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 12.0%30.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 83.9%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 16.7%38.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 8331273Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.7%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —83.4%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.4%80.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Coding IndexSource 49.8%66.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-SciCodeSource 25.9%48.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE-bench ProSource —60.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 31.3%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 0.0%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeMiMo-V2-Flash wins
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQASource 83.7%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-ProSource 84.9%89.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 24.7%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 65.6%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 8.0%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -48.5%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 15.2%30.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.1%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource —92.4%Not comparable
HLESource —41.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
AIME 2025Source 94.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1293Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-FlashQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 39.9%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 54.06. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.7% and 92.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

MiMo-V2-Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 64.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 73.4. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Xiaomi Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.