MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Price, context window & benchmark comparison

MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Xiaomi

$0.14 / $0.28

Input / Output · per 1M tokens

Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Qwen (Alibaba)

$0.60 / $3.60

Input / Output · per 1M tokens

Compare different models

Verdict: MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 7.7× cheaper than Qwen3.5 397B A17B on a typical 3:1 input/output mix. MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the larger context window (1.1M vs 262K).

	MiMo-V2.6-Flash	Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Input price / 1M	$0.14	$0.60
Output price / 1M	$0.28	$3.60
Blended price (3:1)	$0.18	$1.35
Cached input / 1M	$0.0028	$0.12
Context window	1.1M	262K
Max output	131K	64K
Intelligence index	26.7	—
Coding index	—	48.2
Providers	8	—
Best provider uptime (30m)	100.0%	—
Vision input	Yes	Yes
Reasoning	Yes	Yes
Tool calling	Yes	Yes
Released	2026-09-21	2026-02-16
Retirement	—	—

Cost calculator

Input tokens / requestOutput tokens / requestRequests / day

FAQ

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Flash or Qwen3.5 397B A17B?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is 7.7× cheaper than Qwen3.5 397B A17B on a typical 3:1 input/output mix.

MiMo-V2.6-Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B: which has a bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Flash: 1,050,000 tokens. Qwen3.5 397B A17B: 262,144 tokens.

How much would 1 million requests cost?

At 2,000 input + 500 output tokens per request: MiMo-V2.6-Flash ≈ $420.00, Qwen3.5 397B A17B ≈ $3,000.

More comparisons