MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
MiMo-V2.6-Pro 
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B Verdict
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B are level on quality (64.3 vs 64.2).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is stronger in composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is stronger in agents & tools.
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is 5.5× cheaper ($0.548 vs $3.00 per 1M blended).
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro streams 1.4× faster (54 vs 38 tokens per second).
| Metric | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 64.3 | 64.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 55.1 | 78.3 |
| Composite score | 84.8 | 77.0 |
| Knowledge score | 66.8 | 64.9 |
| Long context score | 69.1 | 66.0 |
| Reasoning score | 88.8 | 77.1 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.548 | $3.00 |
| Output speed | 54 tok/s | 38 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 39.8 s | 56.0 s |
| Context window | 1.0M | 984k |
| AA Intelligence Index | 46.3 | 39.9 |
| AA-LCR | 86.3% | 80.3% |
| AA-Omniscience | 8.4 | 4.3 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 93.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 49.4% | 42.5% |
| SciCode (AA) | 60.9% | 54.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 67.8% | – |
| Vals Index | 59.7 | – |
| CritPt | 26.6% | 20.0% |
| GDPval (AA) | 58.7% | 54.9% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | – | 49.1% |
| Code Migration | 43.0% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | 62.9% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | 58.3% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 10.8% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | 47.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | 2.9% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 85.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 34.9% | 11.1% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | – | 82.0% |
| AutomationBench | 58.6% | 57.3% |
| GDP.pdf | 19.2% | 15.0% |
| MLCR | – | 0.0% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | – | 47.4% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 34.9% | 31.3% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 59.4% | 60.8% |
| AA-Briefcase | 1522 | 1445 |
| AA Openness Index | – | 27.8 |
Data as of 2026-09-23. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: questions
- Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B are level on quality (64.3 vs 64.2). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; MiMo-V2.6-Pro is ahead overall as of 2026-09-23, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is MiMo-V2.6-Pro better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores higher in agentic tasks (78 vs 55 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro is cheaper: $0.548 against $3.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, MiMo-V2.6-Pro or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro streams faster: 54 against 38 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.0M against 984k tokens.