Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro (2026) and Qwen3.5-Flash (2026) compare a coding-specialized model against a standalone API model. Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro ships a 1.05m-token context window, while Qwen3.5-Flash ships a 1m-token context window. On MMLU PRO, Qwen3.5-Flash leads by 16.8 pts. On pricing, Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.07/1M input tokens versus $0.43/1M for the alternative. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro is coding-specialized model, while Qwen3.5-Flash is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | Coding-specialized model | Standalone API model |
| Best for | custom coding agents, code generation, and tool loops | multimodal apps, long-context analysis, and provider-routed production |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Long context, Vision, and Classification |
| Context window | 1.05m | 1m |
| Cheapest output | $0.87/1M tokens | $0.26/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 3 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 2 rows | MMLU PRO leader |
Decision tradeoffs
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro uniquely exposes Function calling, Tool use, and Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Qwen3.5-Flash holds a shared-benchmark lead on MMLU PRO, ahead by 16.8 points.
- Qwen3.5-Flash has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $0.26/1M tokens.
- Qwen3.5-Flash uniquely exposes Vision and Multimodal in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Qwen3.5-Flash for Long context, Vision, and Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro
$566
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Qwen3.5-Flash
$121
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Estimated monthly gap: $445. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is $0.61/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.
- Check replacement coverage for Function calling, Tool use, and Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Qwen3.5-Flash adds Vision and Multimodal in local capability data.
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro is $0.61/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision and Multimodal before moving production traffic.
- Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro adds Function calling, Tool use, and Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Context window | 1.05m | 1m |
| Parameters | 1T | — |
| Architecture | Mixture of Experts | - |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0(OSI) |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use allowed |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.43/1M tokens | $0.07/1M tokens |
| Output price | $0.87/1M tokens | $0.26/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Multimodal | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU PRO | 68.5 | 85.3 |
| Google-Proof Q&A | 66.7 | 84.2 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, MMLU PRO has Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro at 68.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash at 85.3, with Qwen3.5-Flash ahead by 16.8 points; Google-Proof Q&A has Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro at 66.7 and Qwen3.5-Flash at 84.2, with Qwen3.5-Flash ahead by 17.5 points. The largest visible gap is 17.5 points on Google-Proof Q&A, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Qwen3.5-Flash, multimodal input: Qwen3.5-Flash, function calling: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro, tool use: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro, and structured outputs: Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists $0.43/1M input and $0.87/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider, while Qwen3.5-Flash lists $0.07/1M input and $0.26/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Qwen3.5-Flash lower by about $0.44 per million blended tokens. Availability is 3 providers versus 3, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro when coding workflow support and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.5-Flash when vision-heavy evaluation and lower input-token cost are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro supports 1.05m tokens, while Qwen3.5-Flash supports 1m tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is cheaper, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs $0.43/1M input and $0.87/1M output tokens. Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.07/1M input and $0.26/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash open source?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro is listed under Proprietary. Qwen3.5-Flash is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash?
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.5-Pro is available on OpenRouter, Xiaomi, and Novita AI. Qwen3.5-Flash is available on Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS, OpenRouter, and Vercel AI Gateway. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-04. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.