MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
MiMo V2.6 Flash scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 84.4% to 76.0%.
Overall, MiMo V2.6 Flash averages 60.6% (#52 of 59) against 61.5% (#50 of 59) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0003 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 9.2s per sample).
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Flash | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Xiaomi | Qwen |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 309B total, 15B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.140 | $0.030 |
| Output $/1M | $0.280 | $0.130 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 60.6% | 61.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0003 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 9.20s | 6.28s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 37.8% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 36.4 to 38.7 | 42.8% |
| Object Detection (high) | 45.0% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 42.2 to 47.1 | – |
| Counting (low) | 49.5% ±8.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 58.1 | 46.0% |
| Counting (high) | 64.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 66.2 | – |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 78.1 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 82.3% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 87.5 | – |
| OCR (low) | 87.0% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.7 | 84.1% |
| OCR (high) | 87.0% ±2.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.3 to 88.5 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 80.1% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 | 77.3% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 82.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.4 to 83.5 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 33.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 35.1 | 34.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | 58.5% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.0 to 59.6 | 61.6% |
MiMo V2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the efficiency-oriented checkpoint of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.6 series, a natively omnimodal foundation model that accepts text, image, video, and audio in a single model and supports a one million token context window. The language backbone is a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with roughly 309 billion total parameters and 15 billion activated per token, organized as 48 layers with 256 routed experts and top-8 routing. It uses a hybrid attention scheme that interleaves sliding window attention with global attention layers to cut key-value cache cost on long sequences, and pairs the backbone with a vision encoder, an audio encoder, and an audio tokenizer, plus a multi-token prediction module and a draft model for faster decoding.
Training emphasizes large scale reinforcement learning on verifiable, long-horizon tasks, with RL compute, environment diversity, and grader compute scaled together in a single mixed run. Xiaomi reports gains during RL on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, a cybersecurity benchmark, and an internal visual coding benchmark, reflecting a focus on agentic coding, computer use, and multimodal document and screen understanding rather than single turn chat.
Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.
Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.7 Flash performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Qwen3.7 Flash averages 61.5% (#50 of 59) against 60.6% (#52 of 59) for MiMo V2.6 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.7 Flash leads with 84.4% against 76.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0003. MiMo V2.6 Flash is priced at $0.14 per 1M input tokens and $0.28 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 9.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.