Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen-14B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 65.3 to 27.6.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | 1071 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | — |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1027 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| CritPt | 4% | — |
| DTBench | 84.5% | — |
| LMCA | 29.5% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1068 |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1031 |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1022 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen-14B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen-14B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.