MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 10
Coding: 3
Multimodal: 3
Long Context: 5
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 157.855tokens/sec

Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct

Other

Reasoning: 4
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)` vs `Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct debate, MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) scores 100 against Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct's 40. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)300ms

Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct300ms

Tokens per Second

MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning)157.855

Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct31

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct

Power is only one part of the equation. This MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) would cost $0.000, whereas Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct Battle for You?

Choose MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the MiMo-V2-Flash (Reasoning) vs Qwen3 VL 4B Instruct Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/