Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 40.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 34.4% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 85.1% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- 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-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 131K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 47.4 (#60), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 50.2% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 4% | 13.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 44% |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 153.68 |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 22% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1481 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | 1488 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | 1460 |
Long Context Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | 1449 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | 1110 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.2 on the Noometry Index. MiMo-V2.5-Pro costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 47.4 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 Qwen3.7 Max share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.