Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen: Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Side-by-side comparison of specs, pricing, benchmark scores, and task rankings. Updated 2026-11-07.
| Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen: Qwen3.8 Omni Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | xiaomi | qwen |
| Quality Score | 100 | 100 |
| Input Price | $0.14/M | $0.15/M |
| Output Price | $0.28/M | $0.47/M |
| Context Window | 1,050,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Max Output | 131,072 | 131,072 |
| Tool Calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured Output | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reasoning Mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audio | ✓ | ✓ |
The verdict
For a sample job of 1 million input tokens and 250,000 output tokens, MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.21 and Qwen3.8 Omni Flash costs $0.27, so MiMo-V2.6-Flash is about 1.3 times cheaper for the same work.
Both take in a similar amount of text: 1,050,000 and 1,000,000 tokens, about 1,575 and 1,500 pages.
Across the 5 tasks where they differ, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores higher on 5 (SQL Generation, CSV / Spreadsheet Cleanup, Bulk Data Labeling and others).
Pick MiMo-V2.6-Flash if you need lower cost or the stronger all-round task scores.
Costs use current list prices per million tokens; page counts assume about 0.75 words per token and 500 words per page.
Who wins by task?
| Task | Xiaomi: MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Qwen: Qwen3.8 Omni Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SQL Generation | 134 | 133 |
| CSV / Spreadsheet Cleanup | 134 | 133 |
| Bulk Data Labeling | 129 | 129 |
| Long-Document Summarization | 138 | 137 |
| Blog Post Writing | 122 | 121 |
Scores reflect capability match + benchmark data + pricing for each task. Methodology →