Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
Xiaomi

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

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct wins:

  • Better at math
  • Supports vision

MiMo-V2-Flash wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • 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 VL 30B A3B InstructMiMo-V2-Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen3 VL 30B A3B InstructMiMo-V2-Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenXiaomi
ReleasedOct 2025Dec 2025

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

MiMo-V2-Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

MiMo-V2-Flash 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 VL 30B A3B Instruct's score of 14.3.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct has a 131,072 token context window, while MiMo-V2-Flash has a 262,144 token context window.
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct supports vision. MiMo-V2-Flash does not support vision.