Noometry

Model comparison

MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2.5-Pro Xiaomi

45.2

Rank #74 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3 32B 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 52.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 84.5% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 67.5% for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

MiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.239.2
Released2026-04-222025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.80
Results tracked2726

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 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
SciCode50.2%35.4%
LMArena Coding15031358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1479—
ALE-Bench899.8—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
CritPt4%0.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts14881334
DTBench84.5%67.5%
LMCA29.5%17.3%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)34.4%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Math14811399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
ProofBench22%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Expert15031362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multilingual MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14491317
LMArena Chinese15071357
LMArena German14581341
LMArena Russian14501311
LMArena French1488—
LMArena Japanese1412—
LMArena Korean1437—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14771305

Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14831327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads

MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkMiMo-V2.5-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14651340
LMArena Creative Writing14401297
LMArena Multi-Turn14771331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1493—
EQ-Bench 41208—

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 37.7 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 32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper