Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3 14B

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads 47.4 to 37.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 84.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 64% for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3 14B specifications
MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.235.5
Released2026-04-222025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$1.40
Results tracked2712

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), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
SciCode50.2%31.6%
LMArena WebDev1479—
LMArena Coding1503—
ALE-Bench899.8—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
CritPt4%0%
DTBench84.5%64%
LMCA29.5%18.2%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1488—
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23

Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
ProofBench22%—
LMArena Math1481—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.4%
LMArena Expert1503—

Multilingual Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1449—
LMArena Chinese1507—
LMArena French1488—
LMArena German1458—
LMArena Japanese1412—
LMArena Korean1437—
LMArena Russian1450—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1477—

Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1465—
LMArena Creative Writing1440—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—
LMArena Multi-Turn1477—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 14B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2.5-Pro and Qwen3 14B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper