Model comparison
MiMo-V2.5-Pro vs Qwen3 8B
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.5-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3 8B 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 34.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 50.2% for MiMo-V2.5-Pro and 22.6% for Qwen3 8B.
- Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.18 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.5-Pro.
- MiMo-V2.5-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Xiaomi | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.2 | 33.7 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 131K |
| Max output | 131K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.43 | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.87 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 11 |
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 8B: 34.0 (#248)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | 22.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1479 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1503 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 899.8 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: —, Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 42.6% |
Reasoning MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 26.8 (#130), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4% | 0% |
| DTBench | 84.5% | 59.7% |
| LMCA | 29.5% | 8.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 34.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1488 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 136.17 |
Math MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 40.0 (#96), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 56.1% |
| ProofBench | 22% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1481 | — |
Knowledge MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 42.2 (#98), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 4.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1503 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 55.1 (#34), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 77.5 (#21), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | — |
Long Context MiMo-V2.5-Pro leads
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.1% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
MiMo-V2.5-Pro: 65.3 (#49), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1440 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1493 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1477 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro better than Qwen3 8B?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.2 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 8B costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.5-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 8B?
Qwen3 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.5-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.
Is MiMo-V2.5-Pro or Qwen3 8B better for coding?
MiMo-V2.5-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.4 versus 34.0 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 8B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2.5-Pro has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.