Model comparison

DeepSeek LLM 67B vs MiMo-V2.5

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek LLM 67B DeepSeek

24.9

Rank #347 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.4

Rank #93 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 40.8 to 7.0.

Side by side

DeepSeek LLM 67B and MiMo-V2.5 specifications
DeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
ProviderDeepSeekXiaomi
Noometry Index24.943.4
Released2023-11-292026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—1.05M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.14
Output $ / M tokens—$0.28
Results tracked1523

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Coding10961469
LMArena WebDev—1438
SciCode—43.1%
ALE-Bench—513.95

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Hard Prompts10701450
CritPt—3.7%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index110.5—

Math MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Math11081436
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.8%—
ProofBench—16%
MATH Level 56.4%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
GPQA Diamond24.6%—
LMArena Expert—1460

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Vision—1247

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Non-English10731404
LMArena Chinese11321468
LMArena French—1447
LMArena German—1421
LMArena Japanese—1306
LMArena Korean—1363
LMArena Russian—1395
LMArena Spanish—1416

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Instruction Following10791434

Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Longer Query10921445

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BMiMo-V2.5
LMArena Text11051428
LMArena Creative Writing10671393
LMArena Multi-Turn10821445

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and MiMo-V2.5 share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper