Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen Plus

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 40.0 to 23.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 29.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 24% for Qwen Plus.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.237.1
Released2026-04-222024-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output131K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.20
Results tracked2720

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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Coding15031328
LMArena WebDev1479—
SciCode50.2%—
ALE-Bench899.8—

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts14881317
DTBench84.5%81.1%
LMCA29.5%24%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.3%
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
CritPt4%—

Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Math14811326
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—17.8%
ProofBench22%—
MATH Level 5—65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1.7%

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Expert15031328
GPQA Diamond—48.1%

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Non-English14491310
LMArena Chinese15071347
LMArena Japanese14121251
LMArena Russian14501323
LMArena French1488—
LMArena German1458—
LMArena Korean1437—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14771303

Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query14831324

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen Plus
LMArena Text14651326
LMArena Creative Writing14401293
LMArena Multi-Turn14771336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—

Frequently asked questions

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

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

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper