Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp vs MiMo-V2-Omni
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and MiMo-V2-Omni score almost the same on the Noometry Index (44.3 vs 43.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher in 6 categories and MiMo-V2-Omni in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads 51.7 to 40.5.
- MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper at $0.14 / $0.28 per million input/output tokens, against $0.26 / $0.38 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp.
- MiMo-V2-Omni accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 44.3 | 43.6 |
| Released | 2025-09-29 | 2026-03-18 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.26 | $0.14 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.38 | $0.28 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 46.5 (#65), MiMo-V2-Omni: 43.3 (#89)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1466 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 70% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1362 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 59% | — |
| SciCode | 38.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 39.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 32.7 (#59), MiMo-V2-Omni: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 39.6% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 21.3% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.7% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 42.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,034 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2-Omni leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 22.1 (#208), MiMo-V2-Omni: 29.7 (#88)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1434 | 1445 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 36.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 57% | — |
| CritPt | 2.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 65% | — |
| DTBench | 87.7% | — |
| LMCA | 29.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.27 | — |
Math DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 41.7 (#87), MiMo-V2-Omni: 39.1 (#115)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1435 | 1430 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 57.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 87.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 22.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 51.7 (#66), MiMo-V2-Omni: 40.5 (#118)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1436 | 1449 |
| GPQA Diamond | 83.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: —, MiMo-V2-Omni: 38.6 (#63)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1228 |
Multilingual Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 52.2 (#90), MiMo-V2-Omni: 51.8 (#102)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1461 | 1465 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1447 |
| LMArena German | 1440 | 1399 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1374 | 1317 |
| LMArena Korean | 1371 | 1355 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1412 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1440 | 1434 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 74.5 (#93), MiMo-V2-Omni: 75.2 (#66)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1413 | 1428 |
Long Context DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 47.6 (#16), MiMo-V2-Omni: 44.1 (#76)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1442 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| CL-bench | 13.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 9.5% | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 62.4 (#77), MiMo-V2-Omni: 61.4 (#87)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | MiMo-V2-Omni |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1425 | 1423 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1403 | 1392 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1445 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1515 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp better than MiMo-V2-Omni?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and MiMo-V2-Omni score almost the same on the Noometry Index (44.3 vs 43.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or MiMo-V2-Omni?
MiMo-V2-Omni is cheaper. It lists at $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.28 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp lists at $0.26 and $0.38.
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or MiMo-V2-Omni better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.5 versus 43.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
MiMo-V2-Omni does, with 262K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and MiMo-V2-Omni share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has 49 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Omni has 18.