Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs MiMo-V2.5

DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.5 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.8 vs 43.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1 DeepSeek

42.8

Rank #108 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.5 Xiaomi

43.4

Rank #93 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 2 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 44.2 to 36.3.
  • MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.95 for DeepSeek-V3.1.
  • MiMo-V2.5 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 164K.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.5 specifications
DeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
ProviderDeepSeekXiaomi
Noometry Index42.843.4
Released2025-08-212026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K1.05M
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$0.95$0.28
Results tracked2723

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144), MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Coding14171469
LMArena WebDev—1438
SciCode—43.1%
WeirdML38.4%—
ALE-Bench—513.95

Reasoning Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110), MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Hard Prompts14171450
SimpleBench40%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark53.2%—
CritPt—3.7%
DTBench82.7%—
LMCA24.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index139.92—
ForecastBench58—

Math DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122), MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Math14201436
ProofBench—16%

Knowledge DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90), MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Expert14051460
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1: —, MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Vision—1247

Multilingual Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106), MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Non-English14001404
LMArena Chinese14691468
LMArena French14471447
LMArena German14111421
LMArena Japanese13781306
LMArena Korean13371363
LMArena Russian14051395
LMArena Spanish14311416

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110), MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Instruction Following14001434

Long Context MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232), MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Longer Query14221445
Fiction.LiveBench52.8%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98), MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1MiMo-V2.5
LMArena Text14201428
LMArena Creative Writing14011393
LMArena Multi-Turn14081445
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1436—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than MiMo-V2.5?

DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.5 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.8 vs 43.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.1 lists at $0.25 and $0.95.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 40.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5 does, with 1.05M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and MiMo-V2.5 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper