Model comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2-Pro

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 8.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Mercury 2.5 scores higher in 1 category and MiMo-V2-Pro in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 39.5 to 23.3.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 260K.

Side by side

Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2-Pro specifications
Mercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
ProviderInceptionXiaomi
Noometry Index33.543.0
Released2026-09-082026-03-18
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window260K1.05M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.04$0.43
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$0.87
Results tracked423

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
ALE-Bench301.65785.17
LMArena WebDev—1433
SciCode38.5%—
LMArena Coding—1476

Reasoning Too close to call

Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
NYT Connections (extended)—25.8%
CritPt0%—
Thematic Generalization—45.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1457

Math MiMo-V2-Pro leads

Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
ProofBench3%—
LMArena Math—1447

Knowledge Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Expert—1478

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Non-English—1416
LMArena Chinese—1456
LMArena French—1469
LMArena German—1417
LMArena Japanese—1366
LMArena Korean—1400
LMArena Russian—1427
LMArena Spanish—1457

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Instruction Following—1445

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
CL-bench—15.7%
CL-bench Life—6.9%
LMArena Longer Query—1455

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiMo-V2-Pro
LMArena Text—1436
LMArena Creative Writing—1415
LMArena Multi-Turn—1456

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than MiMo-V2-Pro?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 8.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or MiMo-V2-Pro?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

Is Mercury 2.5 or MiMo-V2-Pro better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2-Pro share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Pro has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper