Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 47.4 to 22.6.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 33K |
| Max output | 131K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 31 |
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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | — |
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1251 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| CritPt | 4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| DTBench | 84.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1251 |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 22.6 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.