Side-by-side comparison
MiMo-V2-Flash vs Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
Qwen
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0700
Output / 1M
$0.2700
| MiMo-V2-Flash | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 160,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.1000 | 0.0700 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.3000 | 0.2700 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct is cheaper than MiMo-V2-Flash on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.03 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, MiMo-V2-Flash or Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
MiMo-V2-Flash has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 160k tokens for Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct. That means MiMo-V2-Flash can ingest about 1.6x as much text per request.
What is the difference between MiMo-V2-Flash and Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct?
MiMo-V2-Flash comes from Xiaomi; Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B Instruct comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.