MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare MiMo V2.6 Pro 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 Pro 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 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
MiMo V2.6 Pro scores higher on 4 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 Pro averages 62.5% (#49 of 59) against 61.5% (#50 of 59) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0008 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 8.5s per sample).
MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026
| Property | MiMo V2.6 Pro | 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 | 1.02T total, 42B active | |
| License | MIT | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.435 | $0.030 |
| Output $/1M | $0.870 | $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 | 62.5% | 61.5% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0008 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.47s | 6.28s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 42.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 40.9 to 43.1 | 42.8% |
| Object Detection (high) | 46.7% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.7 to 47.3 | – |
| Counting (low) | 50.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 52.7 | 46.0% |
| Counting (high) | 59.0% ±5.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 52.7 to 63.5 | – |
| Identification (low) | 76.0% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 78.1 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 78.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.9 to 81.3 | – |
| OCR (low) | 90.7% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.5 to 91.9 | 84.1% |
| OCR (high) | 87.5% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.3 to 90.6 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 81.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 81.4 | 77.3% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 80.4% ±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 82.5 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 35.1% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 32.5 to 37.8 | 34.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | 55.9% ±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 58.9 | 61.6% |
MiMo V2.6 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview
MiMo V2.6 Pro is the flagship omni-modal foundation model in Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 series, released as open weights alongside a Flash variant and a 9B distillation of Qwen3.5. It uses a sparse mixture-of-experts transformer with 1.02 trillion total parameters and roughly 42 billion activated per token, paired with a hybrid attention design that interleaves sliding-window and global attention layers to support a context window of about one million tokens. Dedicated encoders handle non-text inputs, including a vision encoder of roughly 681 million parameters and an audio tokenizer stack, so the model accepts text, images, video, and audio and returns text.
Post-training centers on large-scale reinforcement learning across thousands of interactive environments, combined with agentic grading, self-correction cold start, and a multi-prefix multi-teacher on-policy distillation stage that extends behavior to tasks that are hard to verify automatically. The resulting model targets long-horizon agentic work such as software engineering, terminal and computer-use operation, tool calling, cybersecurity analysis, and visual coding, and it reports gains over the prior MiMo generation on SWE-bench Verified, Terminal Bench, and internal visual coding and cyber benchmarks.
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, MiMo V2.6 Pro performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 62.5% (#49 of 59) against 61.5% (#50 of 59) for Qwen3.7 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 $0.0008. MiMo V2.6 Pro is priced at $0.43 per 1M input tokens and $0.87 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 8.5s. 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.