Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen Max

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 40.0 to 22.3.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.234.7
Released2026-04-222024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M33K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$6.40
Results tracked2723

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 Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Coding15031288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1479—
SciCode50.2%—
ALE-Bench899.8—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts14881269
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
CritPt4%—
DTBench84.5%—
LMCA29.5%—

Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Math14811275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
ProofBench22%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Expert15031248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Non-English14491263
LMArena Chinese15071254
LMArena French14881330
LMArena German14581254
LMArena Japanese14121205
LMArena Korean14371142
LMArena Russian14501274
LMArena Spanish14711290

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14771262

Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query14831288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Max
LMArena Text14651282
LMArena Creative Writing14401248
LMArena Multi-Turn14771277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen Max?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen Max?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen Max better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper