Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro: which should you choose in 2026?
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 (by Qwen) and MiMo-V2.6-Pro (by Xiaomi) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Choose Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose MiMo-V2.6-Pro if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | — | 1480 ±9 |
Human preference score for code and web development | — | 1618 ±12 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Oct 4, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Qwen | Xiaomi |
| API provider | Qwen | Xiaomi |
| Input context | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Feb 16, 2026 | Sep 21, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, Video | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.26 | $0.435 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $1.56 | $0.87 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Sep 21, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 from Qwen with MiMo-V2.6-Pro from Xiaomi? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro FAQ
Which is better, Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.
Can I switch between Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 and MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 comparisons
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.
Space Bunny Alpha
Stealth
Space Bunny Alpha is an anonymous large model with blazing-fast inference, strong coding capabilities and native multimodal input support.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
GLM 5.3 FlashX
Z.AI
GLM-5.3-FlashX is the high-speed variant of Z.ai's GLM-5.3-Flash, a native multimodal model delivering inference speeds of up to 200 tokens/s.
More MiMo-V2.6-Pro comparisons
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is an omni-modal reasoning model from Alibaba, the first Qwen model built around agentic capabilities with native audio-video understanding.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash is a high-efficiency model from Google for coding, agentic workflows, and web and app development.