Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
Xiaomi

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 vs MiMo-V2-Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 wins:

  • No clear advantages in compared metrics

MiMo-V2-Flash wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
MiMo-V2-Flash
Benchmark Advantage
MiMo-V2-Flash
Context Window
MiMo-V2-Flash
Speed
MiMo-V2-Flash

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507MiMo-V2-Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507MiMo-V2-Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenXiaomi
ReleasedJul 2025Dec 2025

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

MiMo-V2-Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 with:

Compare MiMo-V2-Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has cheaper input pricing at $0.09/M tokens. MiMo-V2-Flash has cheaper output pricing at $0.29/M tokens.
MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 25.8, compared to Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507's score of 14.2.
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 has a 262,144 token context window, while MiMo-V2-Flash has a 262,144 token context window.
Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 does not support vision. MiMo-V2-Flash does not support vision.