| Signal | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Delta | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | +17 | |
Benchmarks | 69 | -4 | |
Pricing | 2 | -1 | |
Context window size | 86 | -9 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 80 | -5 | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 4 wins |
3
days higher
0
days
27
days higher
Alibaba
Xiaomi
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B saves you $120.00/month
That's $1440.00/year compared to MiMo-V2-Pro at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | MiMo-V2-Pro | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 70 | 74 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Rank | #57 | #49 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Quality Rank | #57 | #49 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Adoption Rank | #57 | #49 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Parameters | 122B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 1049K | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Pricing | $0.26/$2.08/M | $1.00/$3.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 67 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
| Benchmarks | 69 | 73 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Pricing | 2 | 3 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Context window size | 86 | 96 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 85 | MiMo-V2-Pro |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from LMArena Elo, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 70/100 (rank #57), placing it in the top 81% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 74/100 (rank #49), placing it in the top 83% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 3-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B offers 42% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $35.10/month with Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs $60.00/month with MiMo-V2-Pro - a $24.90 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.08/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (74/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
MiMo-V2-Pro has a moderate advantage with a 3.0999999999999943-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
42% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Xiaomi
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B saves you $2.44/month
That's 45% cheaper than MiMo-V2-Pro at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | MiMo-V2-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 1.0M |
| Max Output Tokens | 65,536 | 131,072 |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Feb 25, 2026 | Mar 18, 2026 |
MiMo-V2-Pro scores 74/100 (rank #49) compared to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's 70/100 (rank #57), giving it a 3-point advantage. MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger overall choice, though Qwen3.5-122B-A10B may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is ranked #57 and MiMo-V2-Pro is ranked #49 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from LMArena, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is cheaper at $2.08/M output tokens vs MiMo-V2-Pro's $3.00/M output tokens - 1.4x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B at $0.26/M vs MiMo-V2-Pro at $1.00/M.
MiMo-V2-Pro has a larger context window of 1,048,576 tokens compared to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's 262,144 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.